Rezendes Unhinged: ‘Spotlight’ Reporter Now Claims the Church Still ‘Has No Policies’ for Dealing With Abuse By Priests

Michael Rezendes : Boston Globe

Professional anti-Catholic bigot: The Boston Globe's Michael Rezendes

There comes a point when an individual shows such contempt for the truth that one can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt and must conclude that he is an unabashed bigot.

Such is the case with Michael Rezendes, the crack reporter from The Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team, who has recently been repeatedly making the claim in media appearances in recent weeks that the Catholic Church has somehow "not dealt with" the decades-old issue of clergy sex abuse.

Oh, the tangled webs we weave

Thomas J. Nash

Shining the light of truth:
Writer Thomas J. Nash

Rezendes has appeared on various outlets over the past couple months promoting his latest "Spotlight" item in the Boston Globe claiming that Catholic priests have fathered numerous children and that the Church "has never set rules" as to how to deal with this.

Enter writer Thomas J. Nash, who read Rezendes' piece and also saw an interview appearance by Rezendes on CBS This Morning discussing his work.

In a must-see article in Catholic World Report, Nash notes that Rezendes is "seriously mistaken in claiming that the Vatican has failed to establish polices" regarding priests fathering children.

"[W]hat Rezendes asserts is simply not true and not befitting a Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist. The Code of Canon Law, issued in 1983, and which continues longstanding Church policy, specifically addresses clerical sins regarding the Sixth Commandment, i.e., regarding sexual sins that encompass fathering a child, and conveys such a priest should be suspended from clerical ministry (CIC, canon 1395; cf. canon 277.3)."

But, most troubling, Rezendes, in his interview with CBS, claimed that that "after all these years of having to confront the problem, the Vatican has still not come up with a set of policies for dealing with the problem of clergy sexual abuse."

However, nothing could be further from the truth! As Nash noted, the Vatican has long had protocols in place to deal with abuse by priests, including those embedded in Canon law.

And, as we have discussed numerous times over years, the Catholic Church was tackling the issue within its ranks even before 1985 – over 30 years ago, when cases of clergy sex abuse first began receiving national attention.

"As early as 1982, we saw policies and procedures coming to the attention of the USCCB (the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) regarding specific child molestation cases," Teresa Kettelkamp, executive director of the Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection for the USCCB, has reported. "By 1983, 157 dioceses had policies in place."

These policies formulated the bishops' "Five Principles" in dealing with allegations of abuse. Bishops first articulated them in 1987 and then publicly pronounced them in 1992.

And since 2002, the USCCB has been conducting and publishing annual audits to ensure that dioceses have complied with safeguarding and reporting policies.

In the end, even though abuse has soiled every organization that works with children, no other organization on the planet even comes close in its efforts to rectify its past and prevent future abuse. Nash concludes (emphasis added):

"Rezendes is guilty of libel, and as a journalist I don't use the term lightly. The U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision in NY Times vs. Sullivan, issued in 1964, established the modern standard for libel of public figures: 'knowing falsity' or 'reckless disregard of the truth.' While Church leaders in Rome presumably won't bring a lawsuit against Rezendes and the Globe, a case could be made …

"[I]t is at least reckless for Rezendes not to know about and report on canon 1395, given the extensive reporting he has also done on priests' fathering children. For an accomplished investigative reporter, there's simply no excuse for the statements Rezendes made to CBS."

Rezendes' bigotry

Indeed, if there were any question as to whether Rezendes' falsehoods were intentional, a recent appearance should put the matter to rest. On a June 29, 2017, appearance on local Boston TV show "Greater Boston," Rezendes recklessly asserted, "The Church has not dealt with this problem, and until the Church deals with the problem head on, we're going to see scandal after scandal after scandal … The Church can't come to grips with this … This is a systemic problem within the Church."

Without a doubt, Rezendes is not only completely unhinged but a professional anti-Catholic bigot if ever there were one.

[See also: "Five Fast Facts About the Media's Catholic Church Sex Abuse Narrative"]

[And: "'This has quietly turned into a MAJOR CRISIS': Turmoil and major production problems at the Boston Globe persist"]


  1. Adam says:

    I know this is false, see what my Diocese has setup,

    • Dan says:

      Adam, It's not the fact of having a policy, it's living up to that policy, where your church has exhibited just about complete failure in protecting the innocent.

  2. Jim Robertson says:

    The rarity of priests fathering children percentile wise as compared to clerics who have molested children would be lovely to know.

    It would also lovely to know ,percentile comparative between what the church has done for and to priest created families as compares to what it has not done for clerical sex abuse victims.

  3. Jim Robertson says:

    Odd you would call a man, who you believe to be libelous, a "crack reporter".

  4. KenW says:

    ….and Dan and Publion are going to litter this combox in 3….2…..1….

    • Dan says:

      KenW, As long as the deceptions, lies, slander, accusations and corruption continues, then I guess I'll be here to set things straight. I've yet to see you add any great wisdom to this discussion, or are you just the litter box that holds the "litter".

    • Jim Robertson says:

      See what you did KenW. Lol!

  5. Publion says:

    It is what it is that ‘Ken W’ finds the comment-box ‘littered’. Perhaps he was already conversant with all the many topics that have been raised, or perhaps they don’t interest him.

    Perhaps he is simply intently focused on the Catholic Abuse Matter in narrower terms. Fair enough. Has the record of his submissions here demonstrated the fruits of any such intense and informed focus?

    Recently, on the immediately prior thread, I had made some comments on one of the most current aspects of the Catholic Abuse Matter, i.e. the Royal Commission Report in Australia and the Cardinal Pell topic. The record of his comments on that topic is what it is.

  6. Jose Allen says:

    Now that time has passed (and innocents have been sent to slaughter) we are beginning to see that 'The Clergy Sexual Abuse' Saga was but the beginning of a massive anti Catholic campaign .. perhaps the largest and most vicious since the 'Anti popery troubles in England of the 19th century. It has, I suspect been carefull orchestrated for a long while (30 years? Really? Possibly!). Catholics have been told in America that there is no place for them in the Democrat party and in England no less than the exalted personage , The Speake of The House of Commons has likewise said there should not be Catholics in Parliament. Hmm.. The anti Catholic globalist movement which sought to destroy The Austro Hungariian Empire has continued its horrendous agenda ever since. The EU aided and abetted by Ms Clinton and O'Bama has interfered in the politics of Hungary, Estonia and Poland in order to extinguish Catholicism in those countries. Do not mistake the persecution of many innocent priests(and some guilty ones ) for a narrowly limited is much wider and more horrible as well as more determined than the prosecution of a few priests. That sadness is, the bishops have rolled over and ditched their priests, paid off the blackmailers and have never bothered to find out who was guilty and who was innocent. Let us pray that the current onslaught on Hungary, Poland and Estonia as well as Catholics in civil life in America and England can withsatnd the latest persecution.

    • Dan says:

      Good try, Jose, Should read, "many guilty priests (and some innocent ones)". More propaganda? Any persecution against your church is more than well deserved. When you're plain guilty, that it isn't persecution, but exposing the filth of a disgusting religion. Any true Christian is required by the Lord to perform such a work.

      "Have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible…"  Ephesians 5:11-13  Guess your cult should come out of the closet.

  7. malcolm harris says:

    Michael Rezendes, of the Boston Globe, presents a dubious picture re honesty and competence. Thomas J. Nash says what he has asserted is completely untrue… and it is not befitting a Pulitizer-Prize winning journalist.  Dave Pierre concludes that Rezendes is a unabashed anti-Catholic bigot. Personally what I found  when doing investigative work, (auditing) was that leopards rarely change their spots. Meaning It is hard to fathom that a journalist, revealing such low standards today, could have been possessing high standards in his past.  In order to justify being awarded the most prestigious prize in his profession?. But wait….I just remembered a guy who won that prize in the 1930's…..for a series of supposedly on-the-spot reports about conditions then prevailing in Russia. Overflowing with lavish praise for the new "workers paradise". Turned out it was all utter baloney… and the propaganda  was just fed to him by his Russian minders….as he sat drinking whisky, in his hotel in Moscow. 


    • Dan says:

      Malcolm, And you're under the impression that your cult doesn't pour out "propaganda" by the ton or ever "utter baloney". You catholic accusers are an utter joke!

  8. Dan says:

    What is the problem with you catholics? You call those who want to see change in the churches handling of any Sexual Abuse Matters, or any opponent of your church, anti-catholic bigots, haters or on a witch-hunt. All we ever hear from you when confronted with another pervert or pedophile of your church, is denials, excuses, deception and outright lies. Do you believe this to be the proper way a "True Church of God" would respond to the "systemic" and repetitive disgusting crimes against innocent children? This is God's Word in regard to how His True Church would NEVER be involved in any such crimes against chidren.

    "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

    "Put to death, therefore, the components of your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry." Colossians 3:5

    And for those who insist on the Catholic Bible version (NAB) – "Immorality or ANY impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones." Eph 5:3

    "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." [PERIOD]  Eph 5:5  UCCSB (NAB)

    Explain to me how you think my presenting you with Biblical Truth makes me this terrible, mentally disturbed or delusional person. The Accuser and compulsive liar of this forum wishes to brainwash and destroy the truth of the Lord's Word, and I refuse to let him. Come out of this corrupt wicked cult while there is still time. Don't allow them to control your mind!

    P.S. If any catholics have a problem understanding the Bible in English, you can find it in the language of your choosing all over the internet. Read the Word and trust God, not man.

  9. Publion says:

    The bunch of ‘Dan’ comments are of a piece, the bottom line being that he merely presumes his presumptions and then professes himself bemused and  cawn’t think why Catholics don’t ‘see’ what he doth see.

    Well, clearly, if nobody can see what ‘Dan’ doth ‘see’, then they must be ignorant or evil or both.  But could it be that what ‘Dan’ doth ‘see’ isn’t actually the only possible thing to see? Might all his pericopes apply to him – in ways he insists cannot be so?

    ‘Dan’ cawn’t allow himself to imagine that possibility; his whole shtick would collapse and his head would explode.

  10. Publion says:

    But the Rezendes gambit – trying to keep things in the time-frame of decades ago – is and must be ‘Dan’s gambit as well.

    Thus (the 15th at 1201AM) ‘Dan’ doth don his favorite Wig and strike his favorite pearl-clutching Pose, once again asking “What is the problem with you catholics?”. And fortified by Rezendes, ‘Dan’ even allows himself to be joined to some “we”.

    Then a passel of pericopes.

    Which – but of course – ‘Dan’ proffers as the one and only “Biblical Truth”. Once again, the pericopes could as easily indict ‘Dan’ and his shtick. (Unless you buy ‘Dan’s carefully calibrated scam: he may be crazy, but he’s “pure”, doncha see? And he’s no ‘idolater’.)

  11. Publion says:

    He then tries to weasel out of the “may be crazy” part by piggybacking his presentation of (his own) “Biblical Truth” with mental health (his own, in its so dubious and damaged state).

    Thus, in sly and deceptive switcheroo, he tries to put this one over: “how … presenting you with Biblical Truth makes [him] this terrible, mentally disturbed or delusional person”.

    First, he’s clearly off the rails in presuming that his take on Biblical Truth is the only possible take on Biblical Truth.

    Second, his own acts and words have gotten him a police and psychiatric record longer than all but a tiny fraction of people, including priests.

    Third, he thinks that simply by waving all that away as “lies” he has somehow not only a) cleared himself of both the “crazy” bits and the presumptive bits about (his take on) Biblical Truth but also b) established himself as the heroic, truthy, “pure” and ever-competent (and speshully-divinely authorized) proponent of (his take on) Biblical Truth.

    • Dan says:

      Let us know when you're through with your compulsive lying and slandering. For the umpteenth time, catholic liars that slandered me had nothing to do with my material. They were blatant liars, like yourself, who seem to derive some sick pleasure from lying about others. Apparently you've yet to understand that there will be a high price to pay for every lying word to spew from your forked tongue, Hypocrite. Crawl back under the mud you slithered out from, Porky Perjuring Pig. I'm done with you wicked lying fools, but most of all the Accusing Perverter of Truth, Publiar. Never forget that "weasels" kill snakes, but you're more of a slimy worm.

      I added none of my own interpretation to the Biblical quotes that I presented on 9/15 @ 12:01am, so they had nothing to do with my "take on Biblical Truth". The Bible quotes described the wickedness of your false catholic cult perfectly, just as the quotes 9/10 @ 11:12pm described the DECEITFUL LIARS that belong to your cult, you being one of the most prolific examples. Must make you one proud hypocrite.

      I happen to notice that when you've got nothing, which is the majority of your ignorance, you revert back to mentioning the catholic lies and false accusations against me or stupidly mocking God, His Word or His Chosen (i.e. speshully-divinely authorized). You're nothing but a lying coward, pursuing the works of your father, Satan, thinking you can lie and slander so much that your accusations become the truth. Nothing but a worthless creep. Any catholic that believes your garbage needs their head examined.  servant of the Lord

  12. Jim Robertson says:

    End of story.

  13. Publion says:

    On the 15th at 757PM, ‘Dan’ again merely waves it all away as “lies” (the variant this time around: “compulsive lying and slandering”). And he riffs on for the rest of that paragraph, hitting some of his now-familiar talking points: God’ll-getcha, “Perjuring” (clearly he does not comprehend the denotation of that term), assorted name-calling, and – once again – the pearl-clutching taking of his leave (“I’m done with you wicked lying fools” … and so on).

    • Dan says:

      STUPIDITY from "Porky Purjuring Pig" - Of course I know the term refers to lying in court. I chose a word fitting to work with your love of lying and Cartoon Time. If you're willing to habitually lie like you do in this forum, do you believe you would be any different than the other catholic liars (priests, nuns, cops), who purjured themselves in court in order to put me through my " legal misadventures", as you sarcastically like to refer.

  14. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 757PM:

    Then a nicely obvious gambit: the smarmy (and deceptive) bleat that he hath “added none of [his] own interpretations” … at least to “the Biblical quotes presented on 9/15 at 1201am”.

    First of all: after all this time it is impossible not to presume that any negative pericopes he quotes are to be taken as the Biblical writers’ ‘prophetic’ denunciation of the Church, uniquely and specifically. That’s the gravamen of his “take” on Scripture.

    Second: in the second sentence of the second paragraph specifically makes that connection when he claims that “the Biblical quotes” that he put up “described the wickedness of your false catholic cult perfectly”, and so on.

    The quoted pericopes actually describe a list of frailties and failures which are applicable to any organization comprised of humans, because the list of frailties and failures arise from human nature itself and have been part of humanity’s burden since the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden.

    Thus if the pericopes ‘Dan’ quoted describe something “perfectly”, it is the weakness of human nature that is thus so “perfectly” described. (And thus, but of course, apply to ‘Dan’ if for no other reason than he shares the frailty constituting “the crooked timber of humanity”.)

    • Dan says:

      IGNORANCE from publiar – Yes, these sins of sexual immorality, impurity, greed and idolatry are the sins of a fallen "human nature". Problem is that they would not be as prevalant as they are among catholic hierarchy, if it truly was God's One True Holy Church. I must say that your cult puts on one fine display of the "crooked timber of humanity", with all it's repetitive pedophilia, perversions, greed, idolatry, cowardice lying and hypocrisy. And this is why these quotes describe your church "perfectly", for it is a false pagan cult and far from anything Godly, so quit trying to defend it's nastiness and filth, with all your lies and excuses.  servant of God

  15. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 757PM:

    Ditto the pericopes in regard to “the deceitful liars” (scream-caps omitted). And here again one might well wonder how those pericopes might not as easily apply to ‘Dan’.

    He then tries another run of his ever-necessary I’m Not/You Are bit: when I’ve “got nothing” I refer back to – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt? – “mentioning the catholic lies and false accusations” and so forth.

    The references to ‘Dan’s preferred narrative about his extensive legal and psychiatric misadventures goes directly to his credibility and his reliability and his capacity to recognize actuality, especially his own. Given his constant insistence that his negative pericopes have only one intended focus (i.e. the Church), then we must take into consideration ‘Dan’s own reliability and accuracy and veracity.

    ‘Dan’ very much doesn’t want anyone hooking his claims to his reliability. Because to do that would expose the utterly essential scam at the core of his entire shtick: that ‘Dan’s stuff and God’s Word are for all practical purposes one and the same, such that you can’t question ‘Dan’ without – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr itttttttttttttt? – “stupidly mocking God” and so on.

    • Dan says:

      More stupidity from the insistent liar – NO, you are one of "THE DECEITFUL LIARS" (scream-caps included), and it would not "easily apply to 'Dan'. Why is that? Well for the reason that I'm not a LIAR, which seems to be the modus operandi of your cult. Lie, deny, deceive, and do whatever necessary to protect the moral integrity of the corrupt, collapsing, immoral pagan catholic cult.

  16. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 757PM:

    Thus ‘Dan’ doesn’t “happen to notice” anything; he absolutely has to deceptively derail by any means necessary anything that would expose the gap between ‘Dan’-stuff and God-stuff.

    And the whole thing then riffs on to its conclusion, epithets and so forth.

    “Lying coward”? Was it I who – as an adult – verbally accosted school-children behind a fence in a school-yard with rantings? And then created a ridiculous conspiracy narrative (i.e. that ‘Dan’ just happened to be up to his ears in ‘lying Catholics’ and so forth) to excuse his own queasy and repellent words and actions?

    Who, actually, is – as ‘Dan’ so helpfully provides the thought – a “worthless creep”? And who most surely “needs their head examined”?

    • Dan says:

      To conclude, the lying coward asks, " 'Lying coward'? Was it I…?" Yes it is You. And as proof he repeats, as he has for the last 2 years, the false accusations that I "verbally accosted school-children behind a fence in a school-yard with rantings." Nothing could be further from the truth, and you know it. All you have ever proven is that you're one fine example of a compulsive liar, from a cult with lying leaders having no problem condemning others in order to present their false church as being the epitome of honesty and moral values. Lying hypocrites destined for Hell's Fire, anti-Christian in every sense of the word and Word.   servant of the Almighty

    • Dan says:

      And yes, you are a "worthless" lying "creep".

  17. Publion says:

    Not too much in ‘Dan’s most recent crop, and certainly nothing new. But there are a few things:

    On the 18th at 844AM he starts off with an epithet. In rationally competent discourse, one might (distastefully but at least in rational sequence) indulge one’s inclination to the epithetical only after having explicated one’s position and assessment and had moved on to one’s conclusions.

    But ‘Dan’ is really nothing but a plop-tosser and thus epithetical is a) all he’s really got and b) his habitually ‘natural’ mode of thought and discourse.

    And once again, it’s all – cue the pearl-clutching and back-of-hand-to-forehead – Lies, Lies, Lies.

    Have I “purjured” myself? One has to be under legally-administered oath to actually commit perjury. But to the cartoonish, plop-tossy mind that would be mere quibbling.

    • Dan says:

      In response to all of publiar's ignorance and nonsense on Sept. 19, 2017 -

      Let's start by getting this straight. It is virtually impossible to have "rationally competent discourse" with a compulsive lying catholic hypocrite and mocker and misinterpreter of God's Word. The rest of your repetitive accusations and insults towards myself can go into the round file with the all the rest of your ignorance and stupidity.  servant of God

      P.S. If I'm a plop-tosser, it's only because you spew way too much plop to toss at, lying peewee.

  18. Publion says:

    On then to the 18th at 901AM:

    Again, the plop-tossy opener (manipulatively designed to work on the reader emotionally so as to ease his plop’s passage over its contents’ lack of rationality or outright irrationality).

    Here ‘Dan’ will (merely) opine and declare that such crimes (not only sexual crime but also “greed and idolatry”) would “not be as prevalent as they are among catholic hierarchy, if it truly was “God’s One True Holy Church”.

    First, we are faced with the question as to just how “prevalent” such crimes are among the “hierarchy”. So far we’ve seen vastly more accusations but not anywhere near so many proven instances.

    • Dan says:

      And once again we witness the catholic liar and manipulator making excuses for greedy idolators, but especially for pedophiles and perverts of the cult, many which admitted guilt or were prosecuted and found guilty as charged. Publiar will claim right to your face that the accusations are unproven, knowing that innocent children come forward years later and many disgusting acts of these creeps were done in darkness, with little or no proof. This does not by any means equate to innocence. Many of the creeps raped and molested several young boys and at times even babies. How long will catholics put up with the excuses and blatant lies from these compulsive liars.

  19. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:

    Second, we are dealing with the fundie/’Dan’ presumption that faith in Christ leads ineluctably to “purity” of life – and I would note here that “purity” is a totalizing term; like ‘pregnant’ one cannot be just sort-of or partially so. That somehow “faith” (by which humans are saved) leads ineluctably to sinlessness (of which no human is capable).

    Paul himself says “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and the First Letter of John says “If any man says he has no sin then he is a liar and the truth is not in him” (I John 1:8).

  20. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:

    Thus too then the use of the term “perfectly” is also inapplicable here because it too is a totalizing term: there is no modification (such as partially-perfect or sort-of-perfect or somewhat-perfect or mostly-perfect) possible. Except to a cartoonish mind.

    And again we see – to the extent that it reflects any sort of rational process at all – the immediately subsequent claim that on that basis (i.e. the basis of all the blather I noted above) that the Church is “false”. As if any indication of a lack of sinlessness constitutes proof of the falseness of the Church.

  21. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 917AM:

    Another plop-tossy, epithetical and manipulative opening.

    But what substantive content do we get? Only that ‘Dan’ is not a “liar” “for the reason” – had you been waittinggg forrrrr itttttt? – that ‘Dan’s says he is not a “liar” (scream-caps omitted). Readers may judge for themselves the reliability of his insistence here.

    And also – ‘Dan’ doth further declare – that Catholicism has a “modus operandi” of “lie, deny, deceive” and so on.

  22. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 937AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will yet again repeat his bit that he was not a “coward” by going after the children in that schoolyard and – had you been waittingggg forrr ittttt? – that I “know it”. I a) not only don’t “know” that but b) from everything ‘Dan’ has ever put up about that incident and its consequences it is his own preferred-narrative of that instance and all his other misadventures with law and psychiatry that indicates his consistent lack of veracity, even if it is a necessary lack of veracity driven by his indenture to his delusionality and his delusional system.

    And he winds down with another epithetical riff and that God’ll-getcha bit.

  23. Dan says:

    "So I declare and testify in the Lord that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds; DARKENED IN UNDERSTANDING, alienated from the life of God because of their IGNORANCE, because of their hardness of heart, they have become callous and have handed themselves over to LICENTIOUSNESS for the practice of every kind of IMPURITY TO EXCESS."   Ephesians 4:17-19

  24. Publion says:

    There’s an interesting bit in ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 102PM:

    He proffers a Pauline pericope that urges Christians to “no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds”.

    Taken on its own – thus as a ‘proof text’ – this pericope (in the translation ‘Dan’ uses, anyway) is convenient to his shtick: to live ‘in the mind’ is futile.

    Thus for anyone who is either a) not well-equipped in the mind and thinking department or b) rather damaged or deranged in the mind and thinking department then this ‘proof text’ doth ‘prove’ that – to use a favorite fundie phrasing ‘- ‘the Bible says’ you i) don’t need to think or even that ii) you shouldn’t think.

    Which neatly gets ‘Dan’ off a number of hooks simultaneously.

  25. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 102PM:

    As for the translation of the pericope, the Jerusalem Bible has it thus: “In particular, I want urge you in the name of the Lord, not to go on living the aimless kind of life that pagans live. Intellectually they are in the dark…” (vv. 17-18).

    Thus the JB captures the pericope’s actual focus not on some sort of anti-rational or anti-thinking meme (Paul himself, of course, was a remarkably intense and prolific thinker), but rather on the life of ‘aimlessness’ or lack of purpose and meaning which governs the life of a pagan.

    This is supported by verse 18: it does not say something to the effect that ‘intellect is darkness’, but rather that ‘intellect can be darkened by aimlessness’ – which is something else altogether.

    The JB version – as you can see – does not at all serve ‘Dan’s purposes so well.

  26. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 102PM:

    On then to the JB’s translation of verse 19: “Their sense of right and wrong once dulled, they have abandoned themselves to sexuality and eagerly pursue a career of indecency of every kind”.

    This verse repeats a consistent Pauline theme, which was also a Jewish theme, about the aimlessness-induced abandonment to sexuality and indecency that must necessarily plague any pagan.

    But can you reverse the terms of that thought to say that if one engages in any sexuality or indecency then one must be a pagan … ? To try this gambit would immediately create a contradiction to the pericopes I quoted in a recent comment (from Romans and the First Letter of John; the 19th at 841PM) which point out that nobody is sinless and nobody can lead a sinless life of total and absolute purity.

  27. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 102PM:

    But this implicit reversal gambit is dear and vital to the fundie and to the ‘Dan’ approach, which does indeed want to presume that: ‘true’ Christians don’t sin (or at least not too much) / Catholics and especially priests sometimes sin / therefore the Church is not “true” and is actually “pagan”.

    Yet as the pericopes I quoted indicate: if a sign of “true” Christian-hood is that one doesn’t sin then there can be no “true” Christians at all.

  28. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 102PM:

    A typical fundie switcheroo at this point is to fall back on the pericopes of Matthew 19:25-6 and Luke 18:26-7. There, in response to the question posed to Him “Lord, who then can be saved?”, Jesus says “For men, this is impossible; for God, everything is possible” (the JB translation of the Matthean pericope).

    The fundies quickly deploy these pericopes as ‘proof texts’ in this manner: “true” Christians cannot lead utterly pure and sinless lives on their own / but if they are “true” then it’s possible for God to enable them to lead sinless lives (once – to use their phrasing – one has ‘accepted Jesus’ and so on).

    Thus (and in a delicious irony) the fundie ‘theology’ here would quickly raise all “true” Christians pretty much to the condition of Mary: by the direct action of God, they are rendered without sin (or sorta mostly so; they might still make the occasional ‘mistake’ but that’s OK and doesn’t render them automatically not-true and pagans).

    • Dan says:

      In response to all of your longwinded ignorance and stupidity on Sept. 22, 2017 -

      Once again we witness a slew lying accusations, misinterpretations, demeaning insults as to my mental state and more worthless garbage from the habitual lying Accuser. All you have proven is "the futility of [your] mind". Utter ignorance disguised as some form of self-righteous intellegence, not realizing that the only ones he's impressed are the brainwashed sheep of his pagan cult.

      Catholics wakeup and be not fooled by the liars of your wicked church. Pay close attention to the smooth tricks of the Son of Satan substituting Mary in the place of Christ our Savior.

      Publiar states – "Thus (and in a delicious irony) the fundie 'theology' here would quickly raise all "true" Christians pretty much to the condition of Mary" – The only irony is that Mary was a sinner just like every human being on this earth, excluding of course, Jesus, Son of God. Any "true" Christian would have stated, "to the condition of Jesus", not Mary. Publiar, Son of Satan, slyly substitutes Mary in place of Christ, and furthermore will claim that catholics don't worship her. More lies from the liar extraodinaire, child of the father of all liars (John 8:44).

      "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23

      "Therefore Jesus said again, "Very truly I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep. ALL who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. I am the gate; whoever comes through me will be saved." John 10:7-9  If Jesus needed His mother to intercede, wouldn't he have mentioned her or other saints. He said, "ALL who came before [Him] are theives and robbers". Didn't His mother come to earth before Jesus? Don't allow these habitual liars to blindfold you and brainwash you with their stupid idolatry. They laugh behind your back as they rob you blind through your generous donations. Greedy hypocrites!!

  29. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 102PM:

    There is, theologically speaking, an escape hatch in the Ephesians pericope: that final phrase of verse 19 “to excess”.

    What constitutes “excess”? One might sin, but there is apparently some sort of trip-wire where inevitable human sinning – even by a Christian – becomes “excess” and pagan.

    From what we have seen of Paul’s contrast of pagans and Christians, it may well be that the “excess” lies in that ‘aimlessness’ which utterly removes any inhibitions or sense of sin, such that pagans not only sin, but do so with conscience-free and carefree abandon, utterly incapable of seeing how such sin undermines God’s plan for them and for all humans.

    Thus the pagans do not see themselves as failing the ‘aims’ of God’s plan, since they do not even conceive of themselves or humanity as being created with such ‘aims’ to begin with. To the pagans, life is just one great big aimless, party-hearty indulgence in fun stuff that they cannot even conceive of as ‘sin’.

    • Dan says:

      Are you speaking in respect to the (a) "excess[ive]", repetitive sins of a compulsive habitual liar, yourself, or (b) of the "excess[ive]", repetitive sins of homosexual pedophilia and perversions of the creeps of your cult? And you have the nerve to believe that you're all just "Christian" sinners and not deceiving pagans. Please, give me a break. Not knowing if you might belong to both categories (a + b), even your cult's teachings display pagan idolatry, greed, unbiblical lies, topped off with one heavy dose of sexual immorality of the worst kind, to an "excess". Lying, idolatrous, perverted, pedophile hypocrites, thinking they belong to the "Christian" saved. Your stuff is a big joke, full of excuses, and definitely pagan, lying ignorance.  servant

  30. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 102PM:

    If that be the case, then how does one deal with the conscience-wracked Christian sinner?

    Such a person has failed the ‘aims’, but is aware of it. Thus we might well say that for Paul this person is not i) a pagan but rather ii) a Christian-who-has-sinned. And there is a cosmically vast distance between (i) and (ii).

    These are the very real complexities which cartoons cannot even begin to handle.

  31. Publion says:

    Now comes ‘Dan’ on the 23rd at 1240AM.

    He had a problem: how to deal with the actual Scriptural analysis in my comments of the 22nd between 434 and 443PM.

    His solution – and had you been waitttingggg forrr itttttt? – is merely a slathering of epithet / topped off by some wordplay on the “futility” meme / from which he then proceeds to address another Urbi et Orbi exhortation to all catholics.

    In the process, a reader might note, he has – with typical sly evasiveness – addressed none of the points and issues raised.

    Who can be surprised? ‘Dan’ has nothing but his cartoon cards, with the pericope and then a couple of speaking-points attached; once he’s gone through those, he’s got nothing except to try and distract people from the substance with his epithets and further cartoons.

  32. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1240AM:

    But wait. There’s more.

    Seeing the point I raised about Mary, he recalls that he has a well-thumbed 3×5 on that topic in his cartoon pile and a long-rehearsed shtick to go along with it.

    Apparently – and who at this point can be surprised? – it is necessary for ‘Dan’s cartoon that Catholics presume Mary not to have sinned. But that’s – and who at this point can be surprised?  – just a self-serving cartoon to keep ‘Dan’s show on the road.

    As Luke relates it (1:47) Mary specifically said “My soul rejoiced in God my savior”.  The Catholic point is simply in how God effected the ‘saving’ of Mary: she was given the grace that enabled her to avoid committing an actual sin.  While ordinary humans are ‘saved’ by being pulled out of the ditches of sin that they drive into, Mary was given the grace to avoid driving into the ditch in the first place.

    • Dan says:

      Catholics, How long will you continue to listen to the blatant lies of your church and publiar? The dogma of Mary's immaculate conception was presented by Pope Pius IX in 1854. Mary's Assumption dogma was initiated by another Pope Pius XII in 1950. Don't you think if there was truth to either, then they would have been declared and included in the New Testament writings. The church is constantly adding their untruths to the Bible, which in Rev 22:18 is worthy of punishment from plagues from the Almighty.

      Mary was not even included among the "saved", when Jesus left her and her brothers outside, while claiming those who do the will of God are truly His mother and brothers (Mark 3:35). Why must you allow these lying hypocrites to fool you and make you believe they have all the answers? They are the "wolves in sheep's clothing" that Jesus warned about.

      Notice how publiar claims that when I quote the Word it's "cartoon cards", "well-thumbed 3×5", "cartoon pile" or "proof-texting", as if that makes the quote void. He's been quoting all along with proof-texting and single verses and in his own mind he's under the impression that he has God's wisdom? How do you catholics put up and allow yourselves to be deceived by such an ignorant lying hyopocrite? Are you so used to putting up with the disgusting lies of your cult's hierarchy, that you believe the same ignorance and misinterpretations from this publiar? You shall someday come to know the truth and it will set you free. I hope you're not waiting until Judgment Day to find the truth, for that will be too late!

    • Dan says:

      Misspelled hypocrite, but I think he knows his name.

  33. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1240AM:

    So  Mary is human (thus not divine) and she is ‘saved’. The only difference being that the Church considers God to have effected her being saved in a special way, since she was the Mother of Jesus.

    What the fundies have gone and done is to presume that while God cannot have done that for Mary (because it’s not ‘in the Bible’, as they do like to say) yet God can and probably (or perhaps inevitably) does much the same thing for “true Christians”, i.e. if you are a “true Christian” they you are preserved from further sin (sorta, or somewhat, or often, or mostly, or always – take your pick).

    This tickles ‘Dan’s otherwise patchy pinfeathers, of course, because while clearly challenged in the mental-wellness department, he can consider himself ‘sinless’ (sorta, or somewhat, or often, or mostly, or always – take your pick) since he has declared himself to be a “true Christian”, according to entrance-requirements set by himself and whatever participates from the other side of the bathroom mirror in his séances there. So don’t think of ‘Dan’ as crazy; think of him as ‘sinless’ and a “true Christian” – that’s what he’s going for.

    • Dan says:

      Once again, 'Dan' never claimed to be "sinless" and this is another lying exaggeration from the catholic habitual liar. However 'Dan' is not an unrepentant, lying deceiver, idolator or sick and disgusting pedophile pervert. So truly who is "mentally deranged" and "crazy". Yes, that would be the publiar and all the rest of the deceiving, manipulating, vile "creeps" of your false cult.   servant 'Dan'

  34. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1240AM:

    But wait. There’s more.

    Deciding after all to demonstrate his Biblical chops, ‘Dan’ gives us this:

    Based on the pericope John 10:7-9, then a) Jesus would not have “needed His mother to intercede for Him”.  But Mary doesn’t “intercede for Him” with God; He surely needs no intercession.

    Rather, Mary intercedes or mediates between Jesus and humans because many find His majesty and divinity to be somewhat intimidating. Mary’s role serves humans who seek to approach Christ; that role is vital not because of any weakness on Christ’s part but rather because of a weakness on humans’ part.

    Once again ‘Dan’s cartoons about Catholicism demonstrate not only a simplistic but also a profoundly inaccurate comprehension of actual Catholic teaching.

    • Dan says:

      publiar oinks, "Mary intercedes or mediates between Jesus and humans because many find His majesty and divinity to be somewhat intimidating."

      Did you ever give a thought to the fact that catholics, who refuse to follow the Word and insist on being repetitive unrepentant habitual liars, pedophiles, idolators and hypocrites, would find Jesus to be "intimidating" because they're afraid as Hell of the wrath and vengeance that the Christ and God has promised towards those who refuse to listen to His warnings. No! I bet you never thought about the consequences of your vile sins, because I think your "consciences have been seared as with a hot iron". And wow! There just happens to be a 3X5 pericope and by some strange coincidence it refers to "hypocritical liars" with seared consciences. You catholics might try reading the Bible, instead of listening and believing your false teachers and the lying apologists of your cult.

      "Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron."  1 Timothy 4:2

      "Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared as with ahot iron." 1 Tim 4:2 (KJV) 

      And why stop there – "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." 1 Tim 4:3  Catholic rules for fools – Celibate priests and no meat on Friday. Maybe someone should inform your pedophile priests, that they are no longer celibate, but the cult will still let them perform mass. I think I understand the hypocrisy of your cult's teachings much better than you do.

      Catholics, Are you going to continue to listen to liars manipulate and twist God's Word to please their own ignorance and stupidity?

  35. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1240AM:

    And b) that since Mary did “come to earth before Jesus”, then she must be among those “thieves and robbers” referenced in the Johannine pericope.

    Thus, apparently, Mary joins every other human being born before Jesus in being a thief and a robber.

    Which then – in ‘Dan’s cartoon mentation – leads to another of his favorite 3x5s, i.e. that Mary is taken to be divine by Catholicism. (She is not, except in the ‘Dan’/fundie cartoon-verse.)

    Which then – in ‘Dan’s cartoon mentation – leads to another of his favorite 3x5s, i.e. that the Church foments a brain-washed idolatry while “they rob you blind” (thus connecting up with the “thieves and robbers” trope).

    This is as pretty a trifecta of manipulative inaccuracies as one is likely to come across.

  36. Publion says:

    ‘Dan’ – but of course – still has his problem: how to distract from the material he can’t even begin to deal with.

    Thus on the 24th at 1251PM tries to reinforce the shaky gambits he’s already tried.

    This time he will try to cast his epithetical riffs in the mimicry of intelligent questions (it remains merely a mimicry since the questions seek to manipulatively presume what has hardly been demonstrated).

    And yet the queasily repellent and molten violence of his essential disposition bubbles up through the mimicry: “creeps” and that marvelously extended bit (“Lying, idolatrous, perverted pedophile hypocrites” who are “thinking they belong to the ‘Christian’ saved”).

    Once again, a) all of this riffing is designed to get people to presume ‘Dan’s normalcy by simply overwhelming them emotionally with his cartoons of priests (as in: compared to these people, ‘Dan’ is reely reely a normal and OK kinda guy … as well as being God’s speshull deputy dawg).

    Or he’ll settle – if he has to – for b) ‘Dan’ may be a little gone around the bend, but he’s no sinner like priests are.

    And c) ‘Dan’ is to be presumed as the gatekeeper and credentialing-agent of “the Christian saved”. (See, he does have a day-job, and it’s a big one, yes indeedy!)

    • Dan says:

      And how would you prefer that I speak of disgusting vile priests and bishops who take advantage of innocent little boys? "Creeps" that they are, or catholic brothers, who are just about as disgusting as you? The only "cartoon" being played in this forum is your repetitive lying and deceiving ignorance and garbage.

      Once again as I've previously pointed out, when publiar has nothing he reverts back to mocking the things of God, His Word and His servant. There will be a high price to pay for all your nonsense and stupidity.

  37. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1251PM:

    But the core problem remains, for ‘Dan’ and the fundies: how to distinguish between pagans and Christians-who-commit-sin? And who gets to say so?

    The answer – to a reader now familiar with ‘Dan’s stuff – might well be that ‘Dan’ apparently considers himself thus empowered to make the distinction.

    One might imagine that ‘Dan’ has thus double-crossed the fundies by arrogating this authority to himself. But really, ‘Dan’ has simply taken the core fundie ‘theology’ to its logical extreme, just as the fundies had taken the core Protestant insight to its logical extreme:  any individual can read the Bible (in the most basic sense of that verb), come up with whatever s/he comes up with, and whatever that is that s/he comes up with is what God intends to be the message of the Bible.

    • Dan says:

      And this is where the problem lies. The catholic cult believes they "read the Bible, come up with whatever [they] come up with, and whatever that is [they] come up with is what [the catholic catechism] intends to be the message of the Bible. Deception at it's finest. Lies, deceit and hypocrisy, the modus operandi of one terribly wicked cult. Get away from them, before you go down with them.  servant of the Most High

  38. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1251PM:

    This ‘theology’ is – of course – a ticket for anyone to come up with whatever might best serve his/her  purposes, whatever those purposes might be.  As we have seen all along with the ‘Dan’ stuff.

    And the sly solution to that problem is merely to bleat and bray that whatever that individual has come up with is indeed the very Word and Mind and Will of God because … well, just because. Or – in ‘Dan’s case – because his bathroom mirror tells him so.

    • Dan says:

      And publiar continues to oink and snort his ignorance and stupidity, because the reflection in his dirty toilet tells him to. I bet you can make some fine Kathlik Kool-Aid with your filthy water.

  39. Publion says:

    I’ll take ‘Dan’s most recent stuff in the order it appears on the site.

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 446AM:

    Once again, all he’s got are the script-points on his 3x5s, and in regard to Mary he repeats his same old stuff here.

    Obsessed with his plop-tossing objective, ‘Dan’ apparently fails to notice that his own point undermines his (inaccurate and dishonest) claims as to Catholicism and Mary’s divinity: by its very wording the dogma of the Immaculate Conception indicates – not to put too fine a point on it – that Mary was ‘conceived’. Humans are conceived, gods are not.

    The Assumption – supported in great part by the fact that the early Christian community, even “in the New Testament writings”, never evinced any  mention of or concern for Mary’s body in a grave, as there was, say, of Peter’s – simply declares that God brought Mary’s body to heaven rather than allowing it to decompose in a grave. Mary died as a human but was preserved from the decomposition of the grave by God’s direct action (just as the Immaculate Conception preserved the human Mary from sinfulness by a direct action of God). Were her body buried, especially in that corpse-concerned era, the grave would have become a site of deep reverence.

  40. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 446AM:

    As to the old fundie bit about the Church “adding” to Scripture, the Church draws out what is implied in Scripture, after study of the relevant historical and theological elements.

    Thus while there is nothing literally in Scripture about such events as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, the more relevant point here is that there is nothing in Scripture that would contradict them.

    Nor are there any elements in subsequent historical events and theological reflection that would contradict the dogmas.

    In contrast to the fundie literalist approach, which simply insists (though not completely, but only when convenient) that there’s only what’s literally in the Bible (ignoring the huge translation and integrity problems of the surviving texts).

  41. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 446AM:

    And while we’re on the subject (again) readers may recall that neither ‘Dan’ nor the fundie literalism upon which he relies has made any answer even to so simple and clear a problem as when Jesus was born.

    As I said in my comment of the 30th of August at 735PM on the immediately preceding thread:

    “ … such as Matthew saying (2:1) that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great while Luke (2:1-2) says that Jesus was born during the governorship of Quirinius, who became governor after Herod’s death and whose putative first census took place almost 10 years after Herod’s death; nor – contra Luke – is there any historical evidence of any world-wide census ordered during the reign of Augustus, for which, in any case, there would be no rational requirement for persons to have to register in their ancestral towns rather than their present places of residence.”

    Which is it?

  42. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 446AM:

    Further demonstrating the acrobatic flim-flams to which fundie (and ‘Dan’) literalism is reduced, he then tries to float the claim that since (in Mark 3:35) Mary and His family had come and were outside the building in which He was speaking, and Jesus used the family trope as an opportunity to make a point about who are His family (i.e. that anyone who “does the will of God” is His family) … then therefore – declare ‘Dan’ and the fundies – Jesus actually excluded Mary and His own family from the ranks of “the saved”.

    But the text doesn’t in any way support such a conclusion:

    Jesus didn’t deny that Mary was part of His family (the “saved” bit is purely a ‘Dan’/fundie addition); in fact He didn’t exclude Mary as part of His family but rather extended the concept of ‘family’ to include anyone who did the will of God.

    Jesus thus drives home the idea that with God as His Father, then anyone who does the Father’s will is a family member; membership in Jesus’ “family” is based not on blood-ties but on doing God’s will.

     Nor is it in any way conceivable that Jesus here is denying that Mary is His mother; which would have been impossible in the first place since He was widely recognized as the son of Mary.

    And is ‘Dan’- on the basis of this pericope of Mark’s – implying that Mary is not in any way Jesus’ mother? That He denied her maternal relationship to Him?

  43. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 446AM:

    And – yet again – ‘Dan’ tries the old sly deception to the effect that when I point out the problems with ‘Dan’s own stuff I am actually going after the Bible itself. Again, I am going after ‘Dan’s claims and interpretations of the Bible material, not after the Bible material itself.

    But this bit of ‘Dan’s is vitally necessary for his entire scam: hiding his own stuff behind the Scriptural quotes, he has to confuse and conflate his own stuff with the actual Scriptural material, in order to protect his whacko stuff from an examination it cannot in any way withstand.

    And from that bit also flows the necessity of clothing in the authority of Scripture not only ‘Dan’s material but ‘Dan’s own masquerade as God’s speshull deputy dawg.

    ‘Dan’s “truth” will not set anyone free; it will simply entice them into his own delusional swamp-world.

  44. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1106AM:

    Going over again some points I made in prior comments on this thread: if ‘Dan’ is not sinless, then he has sinned, and if one sins, then does that not – according to ‘Dan’s theory – make ‘Dan’ a pagan? Or at least not a “true” Christian?

    Or can a Christian sin and yet not become a pagan but rather become a Christian-who-has-sinned?

    Which is it? It can’t be both.

    And if ‘Dan’ wants to claim that – ummmmmmmmmm – some sins don’t make you a pagan and some do, or that some sins don’t erase one’s status as a “true” Christian and some do erase that status … then how does one go about accurately and authoritatively determining which sins are which?

    A while back he apparently tried to go for the claim that once you are a “true” Christian then God’s/Christ’s grace will prevent you from any further sin. Is that bit still – to use an old Nixon-era term – “operative”?

  45. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1106AM:

    While he doesn’t dare tackle these profoundly problematic issues directly, we apparently get ‘Dan’s position from his subsequent stuff in the comment:

    The sins that trip the wire just happen to be – had you been waitttinggggggg forrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – the ones of which ‘Dan’ accuses the Church and Catholics.

    And how does ‘Dan’ have the knowledge and authority to make those presumptions? Why, his bathroom mirror and his delusional system tell him so.

    He doesn’t dare say that directly. Instead he quickly tries to evade with his epithetical riff that concludes the comment.

    And again we see demonstrated here a gambit I have already noted in prior comments: don’t think of ‘Dan’ as “mentally deranged” and “crazy”; think of him as not being “unrepentant” and a “lying deceiver” or “sick and disgusting” and a “pedophile pervert”.

    I’d see him as clearly being all those things – except “pedophile pervert”, for which the indications remain merely circumstantial and inferential at this point.

  46. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 238AM:

    Once again, I will repeat points that came up when this topic came up a while back:

    ‘Dan’ tries to resolve the human-fear-of-Christ this way: “Catholics” (not all humans, just Catholics) are afraid of Christ’s presence because they are such vile sinners and that’s why they pretty much invented Mary’s role.

    The psychology of going to Mom if you’ve done something wrong rather than facing Dad directly is universal, and it is based in a profound human dependence on the maternal. Mary, the Church says, is thus a part of God’s plan; humans by their very psychological make-up are more comfortable with the maternal presence than with the more judgmental presence of the paternal, especially if they’ve gone and screwed something up.

    An alternative solution, of course, would be to consider yourself so speshully-authorized by God that you need have no fear of God’s judgmental presence. Which would be especially so if you have designated as ‘god’ some thoroughly-supportive things you see in the séances you conduct in your bathroom mirror that substitute for church services and such.

    But for the reality-based community, sin and judgment are very real and can’t be waved-away with delusional cartoon fantasies.

  47. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 250AM:

    Nobody here defends any sin. There remains – clearly – the question of just how much of that particular type of sin actually exists in the Church and from what we have seen on this site such sins are not as demonstrably rampant as ‘Dan’ and others in the world would like.

    Cutting through the manipulative vivid stuff, let’s get to the core of it: how does Christianity handle Christians-who-have-sinned … ? With the exception of the (rather rare) sin of deliberately denying the Holy Spirit when you know deep in your soul that the Spirit exists and is calling upon you and you willfully wish to deny the Spirit, then what does Christianity do with any Christian-who-has-sinned? What, for that matter, does God do or want done with such persons (among whom we are all numbered)?

  48. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 250AM:

    ‘Dan’s self-serving solution is to pick a sin or bunch of sins / claim he doesn’t commit them  and is therefore (sort of) “pure” and “true” / and then happily toss plop at those he claims to have committed those sins.

    Thus, of course, why should he focus himself on being gone-around-the-bend when he’s on a mission from God (or his bathroom mirror) to denounce those sins? And how could anyone dare to think about his being gone-around-the-bend when he’s on such a mission? Neato.

  49. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 304AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will try the old I’m Not/You Are bit: it’s not ‘Dan’ who comes up with whatever he comes up with by reading the Bible (whatever version of it) and straining it through the colander of his own delusions. Noooooo – it’s them Kathliks that do that (and it’s all – had you been waitttinggg forrr itttt? – “lies” and “deceit” and so on).

    Two millennia of Christian and Catholic study and reflection and contemplation of the vast and vastly-complicated Bible are – for the purposes of ‘Dan’s cartoon here – the same thing as ‘Dan’ conducting his séances in his bathroom under the mirror. Except – you can take ‘Dan’s word for it – ‘Dan’ gets it all right and the two millennia of study and reflection and contemplation are just doo-doo.

    Readers may judge as they will.

  50. Jim Robertson says:

    See? they've done it again Hijacked the conversation, Covered up any real issue. All to set you up again. My god if there is a real readership here, how could they be so stupid as not to see the set up? Ken W sees the set up.

  51. Jim Robertson says:

    Barbra Blaine has been dead for 4 days and nothing out of TMR?


  52. Jim Robertson says:

    Wow! I just found out about Blaine. If I was David Clohessy I'd watch what I ate or drank. The facade crumbles.But she like Ken Burns with PBS is pre sold as a good thing. When in reality both are way over rated. At SNAP it was always St. Barbra. Now it is even more so.

    There have been a couple of deaths around SNAP. the priest who let out and criticized Fr.Thomas Doyle O.P.'s report to the American Bishops.(His name evades me at the moment). He died strangely. His house was cleaned out and his lists of victims vanished. And SNAP took over.

    I'm in complete shock.

    I do know Iwas on FB with the woman, the fired employee who was suing SNAP. And she had a complete meltdown. Questioning who she was and if her transistion had been a mistake. I mean very odd.  We never talked about her case against SNAP. We never talked about SNAP.

    Honestly I've never seen or met a stranger group of people than the ones I've met through SNAP. Never! And I've been in the Army and the theater.

    The truth is stil this: that SNAP is, was and was always intended to be a false flag effort by the Catholic church. SNAP was created that the church might pick our lawyers for us and they did and speak to the media as us and in our names and they did. We and you and the rest of the public were bamboozled. This was a grift that Dan and Pub are a part of. That TMR is a part of. Acting like the church hasn't been delt with fairly when the masses of abusors and their enablers have walked off scot free.




  53. Jim Robertson says:

    Fr. Econimus. Is the dead priest who called out  Fr. Tom Doyle's plan to control victims and our families.

  54. Dan says:

    What exactly is your problem Jim? I think I'd be offended, but it seems you hate everybody and anybody who ain't your type, whatever type that might be. Now Ken Burns? Who's next? Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King Jr.? I've done more to expose the crimes of the abuse and enablers of the catholic cult, and you think you can pair me up with them? What's your problem? All I ever hear from you is your hate and greed, possibly a learned reponse to your previous belief in the church. You don't like that I'm here to expose the wickedness of the cult and possibly save souls from eternal condemnation? So be it! Maybe you should come up with something constructive to add to the conversation, before you criticize the work of another. I realize you queens like to have center stage. I joined this forum defending you and found having to defend myself from publiar and the rest of the liars of their cult. I think you need to figure out who is for you and who's against you. You've only become another disgruntled fallen away atheistic homosexual hypocrite of the cult. Welcome aboard, you're in good company.  servant of the God of Judgment

  55. Jim Robertson says:

    LOL Thank you for proving my point. It's the support that isn't there. the smoke and the lack of support says it all for me. You were anti-church and I was supposed to see you as an ally. It didn't work. Now I'm condemned to unsaved-land because I aint buying what you sell. All religion is a sham. There is no god. Now get over it. But that's just the part you play. Heck you may even believe it but you are not here out of the blue. What you do is play Frick to Pubs Frack you are both interchangeable fanatics. and that's only if you believe what you say. Who know where they found you and why you are here? A gift from God no doubt.

     Here have a chunk of truth.There is no eternal damnation. no eternal reward. How do i know this is true? Because you have no proof. You believe it then prove it. and you can not.

    So let's talk about the miracle of a 61-year-old athletic woman dying of a heart attack right before her trial. Almost like the ENRON fiasco and their CEO's death. Same causes i think.

    Barbra was a highly placed Catholic in Chicago as was her mother.She was used to perk Catholic assignments but never easy under any kind of questioning. Maybe she'd have blown the whistle on the scam? No not the scam you imagine (as you are supposed to) but the real scam of SNAP.Which Bishops or Cardinals paid it's bills. Why it existed. How it existed. And exactly what did it do for victims? And why is Jeff Anderson THE only lawyer consistently referenced as pro victim in the most litigious nation on the planet. The center to this myth, as with all myths, does not hold.

    All my questions are sane. Unlike all your answers

    So now Dan we are supposed to have a fight and the smoke screen will decend again. Pub will join in and the bullshit will continue. One problem to that scenario. I'm not playing. So you and Pub head back to the reformation.



  56. Publion says:

    On the 29th at 728PM JR once again demonstrates his own plop-tossing shtick: the conversation has been ‘hijacked’ – doncha see? ‘Hijacked’ from what? Has anyone put up something that would start some other direction?

    Which bit he then tops off with – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – a querulous bleat as to how any “real readership” could not see the “set up” – the “set up” being the effort to distract from … whatever.

    Has JR put up anything of interest? Has Ken W? I put up some material on the Australian Commission Report on the previous thread and there was nothing from JR or Ken W.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Why would anyone bother to change the subject yoMartinmartin Luther would crowd 'em right out. That's the little dance number you do. You fool no one.

      You who would debate anything with you? . we all know what you think about everything. regarding these subjects. You're no fun. Nothing new from you.  same old phrases same old nonsense.

  57. Publion says:

    But wait. There’s more.

    Between 728PM and  1119PM, followed by an extended bit at 1159PM JR has apparently just become aware of the death of Barbara Blaine, of or formerly-of SNAP, four days ago.

    So much for JR’s keeping a sharp eye on the Catholic Abuse Matter.

    But OK, let’s see what he’s got to say.

  58. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 1159PM:

    First paragraph: He insinuates that she was murdered by suggesting that David Clohessy should “watch what [he] ate or drank”. Blaine died from a burst or torn blood vessel in her heart. Considering the stress that she may have been under – given the legal problems that overcame SNAP recently – that’s not greatly surprising. If I were Clohessy (or the torties who ‘donated’ to SNAP and perhaps similar organizations) I’d be worried about my blood pressure and hypertension too.

    I would agree that she might get the ‘soft’ or ‘sainted’ treatment from the media. The first obit I read – from the Tribune Content Agency – only talks about her salad days (but not that come-to-Jesus meeting over coffee with Jeff Anderson) and stops short before mentioning SNAP’s most recent history and its problems.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      That's how Saints are made. you of all people should know that. Mother Teresa was an evil little shit but the world wanted a living saint so they made one up and the catholic church needed to cover it's ass from the sex abuse, so boom she and JP2 hit the big time over night..

  59. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 1159PM:

    He intones insinuatingly that “there have been a couple of deaths around SNAP”. The outfit has been in business for over 30 years.

    Tom  Economus  (he belonged to something called the Independent Catholic Church) died of cancer in 2002, possibly aggravated by alcohol and drug abuse, of which – according to a eulogy posted online – he considered himself a “survivor”. I recall once quite a while back looking up some Economus material proffered by JR on a website that included the terms “Satan” and “Vatican” in its title.

    Dying of cancer hardly qualifies as having “died strangely”. He had founded a Chicago abuse group called Linkup, and given the eulogies offered by his ranking subordinates in that organization back then, it is hardly surprising that they might have been given his files to continue the organization.

    But JR – as regular readers will recall – has this universal conspiracy theory: whatever has happened that makes victims look bad – including SNAP and the torties and the Philly DA having been exposed and convicted and anything else – is all the work of the Church. JR knows this, just like ‘Dan’ knows what God thinks and wants. Cartoon minds think alike.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You mean that planted web site in New Mexico created , where true Econimus info on Doyle's paper could come out?  Come out tainted by Satan and Vatican connections that Econimus never believed or made. the site also had UFO drawings. The church's CIA when it lays fraud on it lays it on thick. For the truth of Tom Doyle, in his own words to be connected to a ufo New mexico site? Why, it recalls the very ghost of the Roosevelt who brought down Mosadeque in Iran along with the ghost of Clare Booth Luce, who bribed her way through Italy and it's electons in the '40's, hover above .If governments can creat false scenarios so can churches. I mean isn't thast what they do best? As far as Universal conspiracies go couldn't you call the church that?

      You know so much about Econimus, how odd, when's your book coming out?

  60. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 1159PM:

    SNAP is mentioned in several Blaine obits as having been started by her in 1988 – which is, nicely, the year she connected SNAP to Jeff Anderson, a deal which eventually led to the current lawsuit implicating SNAP in a kickback scheme with assorted torties.

    The SNAP site claims it was started in 1989. Shrewdly, donations in Blaine’s memory are being directed not to her own SNAP organization but to another similar organization, Bishop-Accountability. I imagine this is to prevent any fresh cash being corralled into the lawsuit against SNAP, although it presumes that B-A won’t get exposed for also being involved in the kickback scheme during the Discovery phase of the SNAP lawsuit. At any rate, I imagine both groups are kind of hard up for cash these days.

    As to JR ‘s claims of “being on FB” with the attorney who is plaintiff in the SNAP lawsuit  and so on … readers may consider as they will. And – amazingly – the self-appointed Tribune of the Victimry didn’t talk about SNAP at all.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Jeff Anderson was chosen by the church and he was created by SNAP not the other way around if  it was not  conciouslydone by Blaine then certainly by the church. Picking our lead lawyers was exactly what the church wanted and needed and did.

      You see how dumb you are? I did not connect with her attorney. I connected with her. You know the woman (transgendered )who was hired to make SNAP look "liberal' "Hip" "Up todate" and definitly not the church. The church would never hire a transgendered woman to bring down SNAP. But that's what they did.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Bishop Accountability gets it's funding every year from one man with a check or at least it did for years. I got that from it's leader.Who that check is sent from. Well my guess would be the church. Who else does BA benefit?All BA is is a list of claims of sex abuse against diocese and orders. Helps he church more than it does anything for victims. As it's owners intended.



  61. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 1159PM:

    Anyhoo, all that was merely lead-up to JR’s main point, which is just the same old Church-conspiracy stuff all over again. Blaine’s death has simply provided JR with yet another mule on which to load his stuff: SNAP (which, regular readers will recall, decided it could dispense with JR’s services when he tried to get himself elected honcho in the organization) is part of the Church-run conspiracy that also includes – had you been waitttingggg forrr ittttt? – TMR and ‘Dan’ and myself since we are distracting the site from the real issues, which – but of course – would actually boil down to JR’s conspiracy theory of Everything.

    JR, of course, remains “scot free” after corralling a million for – he claimed, in the absence of any evidence – getting a teacher’s hand stuck down his pants once. But that was how things were done in the salad days of the Stampede. It was the California Gold Rush of its era.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Again. You're insulting and wrong. Can you be anything but? He shoved my hand down his pants over a two week period. Not once. But that wouldn't fit your script would it P to resp[ect me by bothering to remember my abuse as it happened?  Yes call it the California Gold Rush P because Calfornia's the only place where victims got the most compensation per case. And if we'd gone to court we'd have gotten far more. But remember thanks to SNAP and the church it's owner our lead lawyer was picked by Jeff Anderson who was picked by the church.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      And you would insult me for claiming damages as if there were none and I'm  just a thief. You steal and I'm the thief. You lie and according to you I'm the liar. Extraordinary!

      If you and your God are so tight. He, like Rumplestiltskin, can always spin more gold.

      Pray for it. Prayers are always answered aren't they? One way or another..The "answer's is always either yes or no. (chortle!)

  62. Dan says:

    You caught me Jim. It's a cover-up, a "set up", a conspiracy. I'm paid by the catholic church to expose their false religion, Biblical misinterpretations and sexual abuse of children. And all this smokescreen is so Jim won't be allowed to express his issues, and boy do you have issues. Wake up from your amnesia and post whatever crap you like. Nothin's stoppin' you.

    In regards to proof that God exists. I can sense Him in every bit of His Creation, in both the big, unbelievable, miraculous wonders of nature, down to the reason for the smallest gnat or plankton. All of nature functions and works in perfect unison, something humans could learn quite a lesson from. The beauty of predator and prey in all species, animal, bird or fish. How only the strong survive, which leads to the health and strength of both predator and prey. The universe, gravity, water, snowflakes, the sun to brighten the day, the moon to control the tides and stars to light the night. You fail to believe He exists. Then prove to me He doesn't.

    I'm a prodigal son. I turned my back on Him for years. He punished me with a spine crippling arthritis. Doctors and chiropractors said I would never walk again at thirty. God gave me a wheelchair for each foot, and at 63 I'm still rollerblading. I went through a horrible, suicidle depression for years, that made my arthritis seem like nothing. At 52 He opened my eyes to make me realize that my problems were not physical (arthritis), not mental (depression), but morally and Spiritually based. He showed me the way out through belief in His Son and I haven't had a trace of depression or suicide ever since. Don't believe He exists? Your choice. Maybe someday He'll prove it to you and I hope that isn't Judgment Day. Best to you, Jim.

    P.S. That should give the publiar plenty of fodder to wallow in.

  63. Dan says:

    And by the way, Jim. Not interested in seeing a Reformation. That's already been attempted and carried on too many of the false traditions of "the Church". I want to see a total Revolution, total change of hearts and minds, towards the truth of Our Creator and the end of all the lies and hypocrisy. Looking forward to the end of this wicked, cruel, deceiving world. Don't think we'll be around much longer, seeing the evil direction in which mankind has been headed.

    Take a good look at the natural disasters in this century. Every location was either prominently catholic or locations plagued with idolatry, greed and temples. Oh yes! They'll tell you it's all just a coincidence. Come to the Lord and find hope, or ignore and deny him and have no hope. Know this for sure, His Word is no fairy tale. He's as real as the air you breathe. Someday we'll all breathe our last and be judged on how we lived our lives, believers and unbelievers alike. I'd wager my life and soul on that fact.

  64. Jim Robertson says:

    "Servant of the God of Judgement"!. How about the God of TV or the God of Sidewalks? Do any serving there?

    Sheesh! what absolute nonsense! Your "God" has no clothes. Why? Because he's not there. What a tin horn god you have imagined that we should all obey. The Judge Roy Bean of deities. Who asked "him" to judge anything? It's you who are the judgement cop here, you and a bunch of iron age sheep herders. "God's" said diddly squat. The none existant have no vocal cords.




    • Dan says:

      I didn't think it was possible, but you're becoming an annoying little twit, second only to peewee, but gaining on him awful fast. I haven't judged you at all. You talkin' about my statement of you becoming "another disgruntled fallen away atheistic homosexual hypocrite of the cult"? Just callin' 'em as I sees 'em. Truth hurts? If I'm a servant of the God of Judgment, doesn't make me the judge. And God wouldn't have a need for clothes, for after all He is the Spiritual Creator of this world. You should try to broaden your horizons, Jim. Try thinking outside of your little finite world. Take the blinders from your eyes, for there's one spectacular Creation to marvel upon. There will be a Day of Judgment whether you believe it or not. Slander me all you like. I've taken enough from "the Church" of liars, and I can most assuredly handle yours.

  65. Dan says:

    In regards to all publiar's trash on Sept. 28 – I waited to respond thinking that all the complainers might add something insightful to this forum. Apparently not!

    Do you actually believe all your gobbledygoop, ignorance, stupidity and nonsense, or are you hoping the brainwashed sheep of your flock will suck it up, when they ought to spit it out? Your anti-Christian, unbiblical misinterpretations, poor examinations and lying assessments do nothing to prove anything, other than demonstrate and verify your ignorance. You and your cult can study, reflect and contemplate all you like, but if it's based on expounding on your myths, deceit, false visions and marian idolatry, well then it just adds to the gobbledygoop. I'd only have to be a little right to be smarter than all the pompous ignorant hierarchy from your cult. Nooooooo. Only catholic 1600+ years of "study and reflection and contemplation are just doo-doo". And let's not overlook the excrement you discharge in this forum.

    "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Cor 1:19-21

    Let me know if you need me to explain it to you?  servant of the only God of Wisdom

  66. Publion says:

    I have no intention of getting into the middle of the slappy-match between ‘Dan’ and JR. None of the – as it were – religious or theological or spiritual points they raise, pro or con, are new here and readers have seen it all before.

    I would simply note a couple of points from JR’s further bits on the Total Church Conspiracy (TCC) stuff.

    On the 30th at 821PM JR once again mentions – without actually drawing out any inferences too clearly – that Blaine’s death (that of a “61-year-old athletic woman dying right before her trial”) is supposed to indicate foul play – on the part of the Church, of course, in its pursuit of its TCC).

    Coronary or cardiac weakness can stem from many causes and if one is predisposed to such weakness, then surely the pressure of facing a trial – especially a trial that might expose some notably unpleasant actions – would create stresses that would trigger such predispositions, and perhaps fatally.

  67. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 821PM:

    Ken Lay of Enron was determined to have died of a heart attack/coronary artery disease before his trial. Is JR saying that Blaine died in a similar fashion or is he still trying to insinuate that she was done in purposely as part of that TCC … ?

    The lawsuit against SNAP alleges that it was to a large extent the torties who “paid its [i.e. SNAP’s] bills”, and perhaps we shall find that it was money from the torties’ Stampede fees that also fueled similar organizations.

    As to “why … Jeff Anderson” figures largely: he was the one tortie whom the media kept going to and that synergy between a media-friendly Anderson and a friendly media certainly helped the Stampede that fueled the torties with huge fees which – one might very reasonably infer – were plowed back into the vital front-organizations that groomed the allegants whose stories – when suitably polished and proffered – brought in fresh carloads of cash.

    The trial Blaine was facing was going to examine the plaintiff’s assertions that such a synergy indeed was operative.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Ken Lay was done in before he could incriminate Bush.

      All Enron related evidence to it's scams went up in flames literally on 9/11 at ground zero.

       Jesus you're an idiot!


  68. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 821PM:

    And as I have often said here, SNAP – by funneling allegants to the torties – did a very great deal for “victims” indeed: rather large sums were garnered with little risk of examination, especially public adversarial examination. JR, as a recipient of such monies, is surely aware of that; any effort to imply otherwise is surely a “smokescreen”.

    As to the gnomic bit about “the center to this myth, like all myths, does not hold”: one would first have to define specifically what “myth” means as JR deploys it here.  If “myth” is defined as an overarching belief with a basis beyond the physical plane, then JR’s sound-bite doesn’t work for the simple reason that ‘science’ is only effective in the physical realm and on the physical plane.

  69. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 821PM:

    If “myth” is defined as a fantasy completely (or at least 99 percent) refutable by facts on the physical plane, then JR’s bit might work. Santa Claus flying around in a reindeer-pulled sleigh on Christmas Eve is a myth in that sense, as is the stork physically bringing babies.

    Although one might well propose the “myth” – in the first sense of the word – that  ultimately it is the Holy Spirit Who is responsible for bringing babies, in the sense that ultimately and beyond the bio-physics of the thing it is God’s Providential plan that ultimately brings babies.

    The “myth” of God’s being at the core of Creation poses similar classification tasks: while one can certainly question whether the specific Biblical Adam and Eve were the actual historical elements of God’s Providential plan, the concept of God being the Source of all Creation remains a sturdy “myth” of the first type.

  70. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 821PM:

    Nor – yet again – does JR’s claim of no-scientific-proof “hold” here when dealing with “myth” in the first sense of the term.  One can look into a sonar scope (designed to reveal the presence of submerged submarines) and claim that since one sees no aircraft on the scope then no aircraft are in the vicinity, but one wouldn’t want to bet one’s life on that assurance since sonar is not capable of looking for aircraft in the first place (some form of radar, not sonar, is what you need to search for aircraft and determine their presence).

    • Dan says:

      And there we have it – "yet again" – a smattering of spew and gobbledygoop in regards to an indepth study of mythical nothingness, just so the excuser, deceiver and enabler can lead into one of his favorite lying excuses while claiming it's only a "myth" (next comment). We are not your students and are in no need of learning the depth of your ignorance and stupidity. Knowledge lacking any valuable content, while apparently impressing yourself on how intellegent you think you are. The fact that your cult is the One True Cult of Mary, while claiming to be the One True Church of God is the biggest "myth" you have going. servant

  71. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 821PM:

    Is the Stampede a “myth”? I would say it is based on a “myth”.

    Would that “myth” be of the first or second type? I would say the second (i.e. fantasy) type: the fantasy of a Church chock-full of “pedophile perverts” / set up and organized from the get-go for nothing but the maintenance of a core program of nothing but fulfilling the perverse pleasures of a perverse clergy and hierarchy / thus having created myriads of ‘victims’ / most of whom remain ‘out there somewhere’ in their untold myriads / still waiting to be ‘compensated’ / once they decide to ‘come forward’ / at which time they must be believed because ‘victims must always be believed’ because they never not-tell the truth.

    Which – I say yet again – is not to “pretend” that no instances of genuine abuse never took place. It is simply to say that the Stampede vision of the Church and clerical abuse is a ‘fantasy’ myth of that second type.

    • Dan says:

      In this paragraph you describe the creeps of your church and their modus operandi in fine detail. Too bad it's not a "myth". Now add the blatant liars, idolators, murderers, greedy and the pompous hierarchy and you pretty much describe the church in a nutshell. Why don't you quit with all your deceit, excuses and lying manipulations.

  72. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 821PM:

    And that fantasy-myth served very focused and self-interested purposes:  it was greatly nourished by the Anderson/Blaine/media synergy, and beyond that a kickback scheme hatched between the torties and SNAP (and perhaps similar organizations as well).

    It was a fantasy-myth that paid off all its investors very nicely indeed: those who wished to weaken the Church’s role in society (secularists and assorted anti-Catholic types) / the media that got lurid stories and the status of having ‘heroically’ uncovered the stories / the torties who got huge chunks of cash in fees / the ‘victim’ group (or groups) that got hefty cash from the torties / the allegants who provided the stories in the first place who got even more cash in ‘settlements’ while being hailed by the same media for being ‘heroic’ in ‘coming forward’ with the oh-so-necessary stories, endowed with the status of ‘reports’,  that fed the whole scheme. Something for everyone, as it were.

    • Dan says:

      And followed up by more nonsense. Nice to see you, like your cult, is more worried about the money you paid out than the victimization of innocent lives you pedophile creeps have destroyed. You creeps are despicable personified. Secularists and anti-heathens are on to your trash and damn tired of listening to your piss-poor excuses.

    • Dan says:

      Correction – 'are' more worried about the money you paid out than the victimization of innocent lives you pedophile creeps have destroyed.

  73. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 821PM:

    And while all of JR’s basic “questions” may be “sane”, his answers in the form of insinuations and his TCC bits about the Church not only a) being guilty of everything in the Stampede fever-visions  but also b) being behind all of the players and events that ‘made victims look bad’ (and didn’t give JR a starring role) are hardly “sane”,  and certainly not rationally supportable, and constitute a mush of fantasy-myth of their own.

    And in his conclusion, JR seeks to paint himself as being above the “smokescreen”; but he has been laying down smoke like a destroyer from the get-go – and even continues to do so after the smokescreen of his own ‘story’ was penetrated.

    Those would be my thoughts on the matter. And I didn’t mention “the reformation” once.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Have you finished your daily lies?

      I wish there was a hell where assholes like you could and would burn for eternity. You so deserve hell.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      I don't want a starring role here. I want the best role here. And i have it. The guy who tells the whole truth. I'm not P the obfuscator nor Dan the evangalist. 

      You know what I hink? I think the tide's turning in my favor. If Barbra had to die. And now SNAP will die (after the trial you've set up of course.) Then that means the folks who created this entire false flag operation are frightened. They are running for the hills. That's why you 2 blow your cover up their escape. Someday we will have justice and that's why P has a nom de plume. So no one will be able to hold him responsibile for his part in this deceit.

  74. Jim Robertson says:

    Dan if you weren't here they would have had to invent you. So maybe they did. I can only go by the effect you and P have created here. Even KenW is bored with the smoke. The actions here speak far louder than the smoke that is constantly blown here. Like two stage hands with smoke machines. Blowing blowing constantly blowing. to hide what ever needs to be hidden according to the chuch, atleast the tiny part of the church that came up with SNAP Scam.

    After Tom Petty and Vegas I feel that the masses are being played like an organ. Hit this note the crowd goes this way hit that note the crowd moves another. Leading where?


    in circles.

    Keep that herd a moving through fear.if they have a chance to talk to each other they might turn and stampede their owners..

    All these shocks have made America the opposite, catatonic, rigid with fear. or failure, constantly moving in circles of loss and tragedy. Rigid with confusion.

    • Dan says:

      Jim, What is your problem with me? I've done more to expose the pedophilia and perversions of the cult, which should if anything work in your favor, as far as getting money or settlements from the creeps. All you've done is come up with these somewhat crazy conspiracy theories and half the time I haven't a clue of what you're talking about. Other victims have voiced their opinions of SNAP and said how they helped them and what a great job they had done. Who am I supposed to believe, when some of your comments are quite confusing.

      Do you have a problem with my quoting the Bible and don't like the things said in regards to homosexuality. It's plain unnatural and disgusting as far as I'm concerned, but I never held that against you. Go ahead and hate on myself and my beliefs, but I feel your conscience is what really is bothering you. Sick of you blaming me for your problems, they seem to be of your own making. It's stupid to claim that I provide smoke for the very belief system I've come to despise. Stupid! Plain stupid!

  75. Jim Robertson says:

    Here's a picture of Barbra Blaine. In most of her pictures she looked afraid. Always looked super woried and frightened. What would she have to be so consistantly frightened about? .

    With Barbra there was never relaxation. Never self confidence. Odd for a "leader" It was like dealing with a robot uttering platitudes. With Barbra there was never connection. With her obvious fans who sang the party line she'd let go, just a bit but with the rest of us she looked like she was walking through landmines. I'm a pretty tightly wound person but Barbra was a fist.

    But that fist was only ever raised politely or tragically never insightfully or connectively. She'd come in do her little SNAP dance. And gone.

    What you saw on TV was all you got. Thar veneer was all there was. She never cracked a joke. At dinner nothing. She was a pr pro who had a job to do rolled in and did it and she was out. But get down with the victims? Never. She'd smile and nod at people who admired her and act like their bud for a minute or two and then busy got to go. and out of there.

    You'd think she was Rosa Parks or MLK she was so busy. She was in LA probably 5/6 times in 7 years. The biggest settlement in all of the scandal but St. Babs wasn't here but 6 times. Why? She didn't dare be around too much she'd be questioned. Not by the press but by her fellow victims.

  76. Jim Robertson says:

    See how lucky I am to be attacked by two believers in God. P is the Republican and Dan is the village religious fanatic but just like the Repubs and the Dems (they are both capitalist parties.) Dan and P are both god believers. We flip from 2 fighting each other to 2 fighting me . Both on the side of god and me not. They fight each other and there's smoke. They fight me, smoke. I tell the truth they turn it into fodder for more smoke.

    And no one else has a fuckin' thing intelligent  to say.  If they had They'd need a gas mask to get in here.


  77. Jim Robertson says:

    What's the church's role in society that's been weakened?

    You still attack gay people and women.  you still through your untaxed millions, are against individual freedom as in the right to marry.  Everyone knows the church thinks it's role in society (read money gatherer and "morality" definer) is "important" but what does it do but flaunt it's self importance? (Which is really a whine about lost power. )

    What morality do you bring to the table that others don't? Including atheists and Communists? All you got is being antiabortion and antiGay. Less and less people see those positions  as equating to "morality".


    • Dan says:

      Jim, If your nonsense wasn't so damn hilarious, I think I'd be worried. You think you're the poster child of sanity, "truth" and even the best judge if "morality". This forum gets more comical by the minute. Here we have it folks, in this corner! - The compulsive and blatant deceiver from the cult of pedophiles, perverts and liars, peewee – And in the other corner! – The deceived Queen of Homosexuals, who thinks he's the "guy who tells the whole truth", the only "sane" one in the bunch, and even the "moral" one since many in this immoral world seem to now accept going against God's moral law as OK. Hilariass! You two should be prime candidates for the Comedy Awards. What false pride and twisted egos you two display.

    • Dan says:

      My correction of "if" to "of" got separated by more of publiar's longwinded ignorance

  78. Publion says:

    As regular readers may recall, whenever JR starts to lose control of his grammar, he’s up to something even more surely than when he’s in control of it.

    Thus his comment of the 1st at 1046PM opens with a sentence that makes no sense but seems to be clinging to the “reformation” meme.

    If there is any point to it at all, it would appear to be his effort to make an excuse for his a) complaining that the ‘conversation’ has been ‘hijacked’ while b) not actually having much to put up on his own that could constitute food for conversation in the first place. He’s good at making excuses for himself.

  79. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 1046PM:

    Thus too his second paragraph, where – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt? – he tries the same gambit to which ‘Dan’ so frequently resorts: JR isn’t going to debate anything because “we all know what you think about everything”. That gets him off the debating hook … where his TCC theory doesn’t fare well at all.

    Readers may consider – especially as we work through JR’s most recent stuff – whether that claim doesn’t actually better fit JR, whose ‘conversation’ about SNAP and so on remains merely the repeated reassertions of his TCC theory of it all.

    And – right along with his pea-pod mate ‘Dan’ – JR huffs about “nonsense”, as if merely delivering epithets somehow constitutes intelligent response or comment.

  80. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 1st at 1106PM:

    Here he starts off by trying to dispose – to his own satisfaction at least – of that website that mentioned “Satan” and “Vatican” in its title. And how will he accomplish that? Easy-peezy: the site – doncha know? – was “planted” … we are to accept that it was a “fraud” that was “planted” by “the church’s CIA”, no doubt as part of its TCC plan.

    Regular longtime readers here will recall that we went over the Economus ‘revelations’ about the Doyle Report (to the US Bishops in 1985, and it was actually more of a Proposal for the Bishops to set Doyle and some associates up in their own well-funded fiefdom); the Economus material – if memory serves – was big about the “secret” nature of the thing, although a reading of the text of the Report quickly shows that the term “secret” or its grammatical variants does not appear there at all.

    Having put up that wobbly bit, JR then quickly tries to distract from its wobbliness by riffing on about FDR and Clare Booth Luce (because – doncha see? – JR knows a lot of stuff and is no mere dummy just pretending to know a lot of stuff).

    And he concludes with a bit of epithetical snark, just because that’s really what he does best.

  81. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 1st at 1114PM:

    Here he again repeats his bit that Jeff Anderson, a long-established tortie up in the Twin Cities area, “was chosen by the Church” and it was he who “created SNAP [and] not the other way around”.

    JR had originally claimed – and Michael D’Antonio had noted in his Stampede-friendly book “Mortal Sins” – that SNAP had actually been started several years before, in the early ‘80s. But D’Antonio goes on to note that it had not been doing well; and then Anderson invited Blaine to coffee in early 1988, made Blaine an offer of some form of cooperation (perhaps, as the current lawsuit alleges, some form of kickback scheme), and SNAP took off from there to become what we now know as SNAP.

    Curiously, the SNAP website now claims that it was started in 1989, thus sidestepping the Anderson-Blaine events completely.

  82. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 1114PM:

    Jeff Anderson “was chosen by the Church”? He was a tortie and realized that the long-established tortie strategy of creating large lawsuits against corporations or deep-pockets defendants, such that the defendants or their insurers would consider it cheaper in the long run to pay out settlement money rather than go to trial over each allegation … could be run against the Church.

    And when combined with the then-ascendant Victimist trend in both law and public opinion (fed and formed by the media) the allegations would now run little if any risk of being adversarially examined (since to question somebody who was (already presumed to be) a ‘victim’ would be ‘blaming the victim’ and ‘re-victimizing’ the ‘victim’.

    He paved the way for the billons paid out, with the torties raking in hefty fees and costs, with which – if the current lawsuit’s allegations about SNAP be accurate – the torties then used to kickback money to their front and funneling organizations such as SNAP.

  83. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 1114PM:

    JR then tries to establish how “dumb” I am but manages – nothing new here – his own mis-reading (intentional or through incompetence) of my statement about his claim to have been “on FB” with the attorney who is also the plaintiff in the current lawsuit.

    Yes, again, he claims to have been in communication with her “on FB”. That’s what I had noted. Whether he was actually in such communication and whether she responded to him is anybody’s guess. Clearly she did not discuss the case, which renders the ‘communication’ irrelevant here.

    And – if readers haven’t seen enough of JR’s whackery already – he then tries to keep his TCC theory going by claiming that “the church would never hire a transgendered woman” … “but that’s what they did” … apparently – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttttt? – to reely reely hide the TCC plan by doing what “they” “would never” do.

    Of such ‘logic’ are JR’s ‘theories’ comprised.

    And was the attorney/plaintiff transgendered when hired? Or did the plaintiff/attorney decide on that course later?

  84. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 1st at 1120PM:

    Here JR tells us – because he just knows this stuff and we can trust him as a veracious and reliable reporter of actual events – that B-A was for a while given a funding check “every year from one man”.

    Was that “man” a tortie? That would certainly be a strong probability since B-A, by compiling a handy online reference for enterprising allegants and media types, was certainly useful to the torties.

    JR, however, would “guess” that the “man” “would be the church”. Thus again we are faced with JR’s ‘theory’ that the Church funded organizations that were feeding the Stampede against the Church.

    And this whole bit presumes that JR is accurate and veracious in his hearsay report that B-A derived its funds from a single source in the first place.

    But if such checks exist, then they can be traced and that might prove very interesting indeed.

    Readers may consider and judge as they will.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      No it was a man who's last name was like Puddles??? he wrote a book and was hocking it at  the 2008 SNAP conference in Chicago.  He gave a check to BA that floated it for the year.!!! The whole year's budget out of the blue. It could have been Jeff Anderson who gave Mr. "Puddles" the check. But  how do we know Jeff Anderson isn't the lawyer referred to in Doyle's paper? The lawyer who'd hand out checks

      There's the Cardinal in Anderson's own town, The Cardinal who's now the NY Cardinal and Anderson seemed to give him enough time to transfer 21 millionn into a Catholic cemetary account. So the victims would get zilch. Zilch or close to zilch.

      Oh checks will be shown to prove SNAP was a tool of our lawyers. The question should be who pulled our lawyers chains? Not us and not SNAP

      As with all false flagged events like SNAP there are far more questiones left unanswered than answered.

      A conpiracy creates a program and follows it. Doyle created the program in the early '80's. It was created before SNAP. it was the battle plan and the matrix for SNAP; BA; Anderson the whole chrade.

      I wonder if Blaine was a stooge who obeyed Doyle and Anderson untill it finally dawned on her what SNAP was .If I was that evilly wrong, I think it would tear my heart out as well.

  85. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 1st at 1128PM:

    Here JR strikes his favorite pose, that of the innocent victim: I am “insulting and wrong” , apparently in regard to my saying he received a million (in a massive 500-plus plaintiff lawsuit a decade and more ago) for allegedly having a teacher’s hand stuck down his pants (40-plus years before that).

    Apparently this happened “over a two-week period”, which – JR apparently doesn’t or didn’t ever realize – raises rather more questions than it answers. Just how many times it actually happened “over a two-week period” JR doesn’t mention, and perhaps he realizes this is a road he really doesn’t want to go down too much farther.

    There’s actually no way I can “disrespect” (and thus, of course, ‘re-victimize’) him since I have always expressed doubt as to the veracity of his claim to begin with, for all the reasons I explicated at length here a while back when this whole bit was first considered.

  86. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 1128PM:

    But again we see here the old Victimist ploy: if you doubt the allegant’s story then you are ‘disrespecting’ and ‘re-victimizing’ the allegant.

    And we also see another ploy as well: having cashed the settlement check (gleaned through that old tortie stratagem I mentioned in a prior comment above) an allegant can then claim that he would surely have gotten even more had he gone to trial. Whether a jury would have bought the story is anybody’s guess, although it was California and it was during the salad-days of the Stampede.

    And actually, as an allegant/plaintiff it was JR’s responsibility as to whether he would allow his counsel to be chosen by anybody else. He might have gone to court on his own, filing an individual lawsuit with his own individual counsel – but he didn’t choose that route.

    And to claim that the Anderson was the tool of the Church and chose a subordinate tool or set of tools to handle the massive California lawsuit is for readers to judge. Certainly, if Anderson was not certified to practice in California, then he – like any out-of-state, non-certified attorney – would have had to engage California-certified attorneys to do the actual legal work in that State. But at any rate, handling a 500-plus plaintiff lawsuit was going to require help.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      There were 6 lawyers and a couple of assistants tops for L.A. on"our side". Given there were 500 L.A. clients. Not a whole lot of lawyers.

      Interesting how P defends the myths of upfront honesty that SNAP and Anderson portray. But when it comes to victims none of us are telling the truth of the huge number of victims P has read about.

      Have you ever met a victim you liked  or better, believed, P? (This is where he trots out the rational posture of middle class sagacity, it's his party piece, to say no he hasn't )

      Go into your dance, Princess Pretty Girl. We've all seen it before but it's all you do. 

      (By the way people who curse more are more intelligent, studies have found.)


    • Jim Robertson says:

      And only 2 lawyers had the vast majority of those cases. Bouchet chosen by Anderson and Freeburg, my lawyer, who ollowed everything Bouchet did. Bouchet had the most casses well over 300 and Freeburg ran second at 160 more or less. So the other 4 lawyers had but few clients.

  87. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 620AM:

    I had put up a sequence of comments (the 28th of September from 1217PM to 1237PM).

    ‘Dan’ has waited a while – perhaps hoping readers would forget the questions posed in those comments – but comes now on the 2nd at 620AM. He excuses his delay by claiming that he had been merely (and innocently) waiting to see if anyone else would respond to those comments and their questions about his material. (So – doncha see? – it’s everybody else’s fault that he waited.)

    And – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt? – merely dismisses it all as “trash”. Which is then followed in his second paragraph by an epithetical riff against my material (and those questions) and also against “the brainwashed sheep”.

    I have put up “poor examinations”. Does he identify or explicate any? He does not. Ditto any “lying assessments”.

    Basically, ‘Dan’s position is that if he doesn’t like it or can’t deal with it (because it questions or contradicts his 3×5 cartoon bits) then he needn’t answer and can just indulge himself in epithetical riffs.

    Then a pericope that apparently seeks to establish that God says you don’t have to know anything about Scripture as long as you make the right claims about Scripture, and – but of course – ‘Dan’ is certain he knows all that needs to be known (i.e. his cartoons).

    • Dan says:

      You're such a flamin' idiot. If I don't think your ignorance and stupidity is worth responding to, do you think I'd be expecting others to respond to your ignorant comments and worthless questions. KenW and JR were complaining that we hog an open forum, where anyone is free to comment. I was giving them the chance to do that. Don't act so stupid, or is it not an act?

    • Dan says:

      And once again publiar demonstrates with his weak worldly wisdom and knowledge, his lack of understanding when it comes to Scripture and the reason for his misinterpretations of Scripture. God grants wisdom and understanding only to His children who have faith in Him. If you're too afraid to go to the Almighty God and His "Awe-ful" Son, and like the typicable cowardly momma's boy, would rather aproach Mother Mary with your needs (i.e. wisdom, mercy, hope, etc.), then you should expect nothing from the Lord. Compound that with all your other idolatry, lies, greed and disgusting sexual immorality, and you shouldn't expect much of anything from God, let alone His wisdom and understanding.

      "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But he must act in faith, without doubting, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind." James 1:5-6

      "Behold, thou desireth truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me know wisdom." Psalm 51:6 (KJV)  How can a habitual liar think he will ever gain wisdom from the Lord? Lying hypocrites must rely on your father Satan to give you wisdom and knowledge, and that is why your trash is flooded with lies, especially when confronting a worthy opponent. Remember, "He is the father of all lies and liars."  servant, tired of teaching the stubbornly ignorant

  88. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 511PM:

    Here he reverts to his old ‘smokescreen’ ploy. And … well, there’s really nothing else to it except more epithetical riffing to substitute for any substantive content.

  89. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 610PM:

    Apparently JR is now going to do some reading-into a photo of Blaine, based – he would have us believe – on his knowledge of her (he worked at SNAP for a while, readers may recall, until he tried to get himself ‘elected’ to take over the operation and was shown the door).

    And thus the entire comment trails off into JR’s ‘reminiscences’ of her and readers can do with it what they will.

    But few of the “victims” – many having been steered to the torties and having cashed their settlement checks – appear to have come forth, in the past or in the present. They don’t seem to have a beef with SNAP’s operation or with the torties’ to whom they were steered (except perhaps to complain about the size of the torties’ take of their winnings).

    JR has a beef though: they got rid of him when they realized what they had on their hands and he’s gonna get back at ‘em all because in the final analysis that’s what JR does. Which, by amazing coincidence, is precisely what the faculty at his school figured about him long ago, as documents finally revealed a few years ago when examined here.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Got rid of e. I quit SNAP after the first convention in St Louis in '03. I LEFT them. Later on when Steve Sanchez left the leadership post in L.A. we voted Udo Stratinsky in Udo was a lawyer  with two doctorates and also an L.A. victim. That election was ignored by SNAP. I was elected later because the only way to stop SNAP's behavior was to become it. That election was ifnored by SNAP.

      See P's lies here? I'm gonna get back at them all? Who's " 'em all"? The people who molested me? the people who enabled that abuse? The people who told me they were there for me and other victims but proved themselves not to be? Or am I just out to get anybody?  I don't like people who use me who lie about me and cheat me. Anything wrong in wanting to get those "em"?

      What a living piece of dung you are. Am I on your hands here P? Cuz I'm definitly out to get you.

      Why would anybody believe you? You twist and lie for what the Catholic church? I thought the church was supposed to be better than that. How naive I was. They, the hierarchs, rise on how much money and influence they bring in and keep. That's the real church. The rest is all Xmas windows and fluff.

      I ask the readership? Am I the kind of person you would keep around if you felt I was on your hands? I left SNAP in 2003. I went to their press conferences at the Cathedral to support my fellow victims but I knew SNAP was incompetant for victims in 2003. I gort elected SNAP leader in 2007. I only returned to take control away from the idiots running SNAP in L.A.. And even then I only sought the position after another election was ignored by SNAP.

      That was democracy. My "nuttiness", as P would paint me, had nothing to do with anything but  my rightful anger when democracy was over ridden with no reason. i.e. ignoring Udo's election. And in 2007 I hadn't even figured out that SNAP was a false flag yet. That they all were false flags including TMR and P.

      Why wouldn't anybody have a beef with being manipulated ignored and lied about? I hired a lawyer not a nest of harpies.

      Dear Lord Baby Jesus, so cute, please one day in the near future before I die please let the truth come out about this false flagged adventure in piracy and please let P die a miserable death. In your name I pray. Amen.



  90. Publion says:


    ‘Dan’s most recent crop is merely a bunch of his usual epitheticals with no substance, no refutation, no explication.

    On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 802PM:

    Here JR merely tosses out his – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttttt? – conspiracy theory about Ken Lay’s death.

    Not to see that it was a conspiracy like JR does is simply to prove one is “an idiot!”.

    Much like his pod-mate ‘Dan’, JR has his cartoons and if you can’t see what he sees then … and so on.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 804PM:

      Much like his pod-mate ‘Dan’ JR here will simply declare – clutching the pearls – that my material is “lies”. Any examples? Not a one.

      It concludes with an epithetical bit of scatology because – doncha see? – in the adolescent back-of-the-cafeteria world that JR still inhabits, scatology proves both that you are much-man and are surely right and very clever.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 854PM:

      Here he seeks to spell out what he sees as his role here (in case readers who consider his material might come to a less congenial conclusion): he doth have “the best role here”, that of “the guy who tells the whole truth”.

      Readers may judge as they will.

      And – in case reads who consider his material might come to a less congenial conclusion – he also suggests that “the tide’s turning in [his] favor here”. That’s because it is apparently becoming clear (to JR anyway) that the “trial” that the Church has “set up” (i.e. the current lawsuit against SNAP) means – popcorn, please – that the Church (which JR considers to have “created this entire false flag operation”) is now “frightened” and “running for the hills”. And the evidence for that?

      Well, to JR’s mind, that’s proven by the fact that ‘Dan’ and I are – JR would say – blowing so much smoke. The fact that I began posting here long before the current lawsuit or Blaine’s death … well, JR can’t be expected to explain everything and why quibble over mere inconvenient facts?

      And then a pious bleat about “justice”. From the well-remunerated but never-raped one. JR might want to give some further and serious thought as to what any eventual “justice” might do. 


    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 824PM (appearing after his 854PM comment):

      Here JR will try to simultaneously a) distract from his material and b) demonstrate his fancied current-events chops by going about Democrats and Republicans. The upshot of the whole thing being that JR blows no smoke and yet he doth “tell the truth”.

      Which popcorn-inducing bit is then supported by more scatology and the presumptive implication that JR and he alone doth have “intelligent” things to say.

      Readers may judge as they will.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 914PM:

      Here he confuses or deliberately conflates the objectives of secularists and anti-Catholics with either a) the results of their efforts or b) the Church’s positions on various issues or c) both.

      But when you are in the cartoon and smoke-blowing business, you can’t let inconvenient facts get in your way.

      His effort to plump for ‘atheist’ and ‘Communist’ “morality” is there for any popcorn-equipped reader to consider. 

    • Publion says:

      On the 3rd at 553PM ‘Dan’ will – no doubt eagerly and gratefully – take the opportunity to evade his own lack of response and try to position himself on the rhetorical high-ground by chuckling about how “hilarious” all the “nonsense” is.

      Nicely, he yet again rather comically digs himself in deeper as he’s trying to dig himself out: he punctuates his bit against homosexuality with the exclamation “Hilariass!”, a bit of scatology that is apparently supposed to a) reinforce his much-man creds but actually b) only throws into bright relief his own adolescent reliance on scatology, just like his pod-mate JR.

      And then – even more comically – he declaims against “false pride and twisted egos” … this from someone who claims he is God’s very own very speshull deputy dawg. 

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Hey asshole i don't have pearls. It's Grande Dames like you who wear them and clutch them like God to your saggy bosom.

      You lied about my abuse. You lie of how you've outed me by saying I oughted myself about my abuse. You lie about what i've said regarding Who created SNAP and who created Anderson as players.

      The money that SNAP required came from somewhere. Victims didn't give them didilly. And Jeff Anderson couldn't afford to keep SNAP afloat.all by himself.  There were three or four full time paid employees plus Travel expenses hotels food. Let's say SNAP's annual budget was $600,000. Jeff Anderson wouldn't be laying that amount of money out. So who was SNAP's matrix if not the church? The media? No. Victims? No. Given our damage from the abuse few of us could afford to give to SNAP. Where did SNAP's 25+ years of  budgets come from? The lawyers,  "our" lawyers You think they'd lay out $18 million  to get SNAP to do the little it did?   

      And I'm not even mentioning Bishop Accountabilities annual budgets. Fr. Tom Doyle's expenses. The books that have been funded to never look deeper and to pretend that SNAP was everything it pretended to be.

      That's one hell of a lot of money over 25 years. Where did that kind of money come from? Who else but the church had that amount readily available?

      SNAP came from nowhere. There were no grass roots. They couldn't have grassroots because they were not running what they claimed they were. They sprang fully grown from the head of Tom Doyle and the wealth and approval of the church and from nowhere else. 

  91. Dan says:

    Correction – judge of "morality" – Thought I'd better correct that quick. Next thing you know JR might be joining peewee's grammar police.

  92. Dan says:

    Only a fool would say, "There is no God!" They are all corrupt, and they have done terrible things; there is no one who does what is right. The Lord looks down from heaven at us humans to see if there are any who are wise, any who worship Him. But they have all gone wrong; they are all equally bad. Not one of them does what is right, not a single one. "Don't they know?" asks the Lord. "Are all these evildoers ignorant?"  Psalm 14:1-4

    "If you fear the Lord and put your trust in Him, He will keep you safe, and so you can be brave and face any danger. The Lord will bless you if you fear Him and ask for His help. And if you love the Lord, He will give you strength and keep you from falling. He will be your shield, protecting you and giving shade from the burning heat of the summer sun at noon. Your eyes will sparkle with the happiness He gives, and He will bless you with health and a long life."  Sirach 34:14-20

    First paragraph – A Psalm of David – Slew Goliath, the figure of ultimate evil. Sinner? Yes. Truly sorry for his sins? Absolutely. Jim, You think you're wiser than King David, Solomon's father. Like I said, "What an ego!" Ever heard that "Pride disgusts the Lord". Why do you think the movement was named "Gay Pride". Those refusing to listen to their Creator.

    Don't get any idea that your cult is any better there, publiar. Actually worse for being idolators, into more disgusting homosexual pedophilia and perversions. They may believe there's a god, but they surely have no fear in going against the True God. Hypocrites and Liars.

  93. Dan says:

    Glad to see you back Jim, so we can blame you again for all the life choking smoke you give to the conversation, not to mention the opportunity you afford to publiar to resond with his longwinded life choking answers of nothingness. Well done, KenW should be proud of you.

  94. Jim Robertson says:

    Fuck that! Here's P's post in a nutshell of his own making.

    Dan's wrong

    Jim's wrong

    He's right.

    Resort to this post it will save you much time here.

  95. malcolm harris says:

    JR, on the 2nd, makes some interesting comments about Barbara Blaine, who died recently. Apparently he was speaking from an eye witness viewpoint, when he described her as appearing  uncomfortable addressing an audience. Even when the audience were her own suppporters. He called her "St. Babs". Suggesting an individual who was seemingly above it all….and not prepared to be questioned… not even by her own adoring supporters. Sometimes this can be a mask to hide insecurity.  As the less we say…the less anybody can find fault with us. But think about it?. If she was so apprehensive about interacting with her own people…..then imagine her anxiety about being cross-examinded in a court of law by a plaintiff's lawyer?  Moreover the plaintiff, a former employee, would have the evidence to substantiate her accusations against SNAP. That  prospect could easily be the final straw for any stressed-out person. So I can't see any good reason to speculate about a conspiracy… as JR has done.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The only reason, Malcolm Harris , that I speculate about a conspiracy is because I don't. I speculate about very little here. Maybe Barbra's death but the conspiracy that I espouse, that I know to be true is directly from the paper written to The American Bishops by the Canon lawyer at the Vatican embassy in  Washington D.C..That Canon lawyer was Fr. Thomas Doyle O.P.. He created the conspiracy. Fr, Econimus let that conspiracy out and he also analyized Doyle's paper so that even someone as thick as me about the word "committees" became illuminated.  It's that simple.

      When's the last time you heard any thing about big settlements by the church worldwide? It was California in 2007. Australia has yet to come to a settlement. So this stampede Pearl Bailey has been on about, hasn't trampled a blade of grass in over 10 years. A geriatric stampede of sloths no doubt.

  96. Dan says:

    Following in line with the majority of publiar's ignorance and stupidity, he states on Oct.4 @ 6:14pm – [Dan] declaims against "false pride and twisted egos" … this from someone who claims he is God's very own very speshull deputy dawg." First off – Anyone by now should be able to recognise publiar's insistent childish mocking of God and His servant (i.e. God's very own very speshull deputy dawg). Mr. Vocabulary might want to look up the definition of servant, the word I've used most often to identify my place with the Lord. My boast has always been in my God and Savior Jesus Christ, and servant is in no way a word of pride or ego. Once again the liar thinks he can continually accuse or label myself with infantile titles or lies and in his own mind that now becomes truth. How can you catholics ever come to this liars defense and think he is a good example or worthy apologist for your church? Nothing but a despicable lying hypocrite.

    I have absolutely no need to reinforce my manhood. I'm not the one who runs to hide under my Mother Mary's dress, because I'm so afraid of the God of Judgment and His "Awe-ful" Son. What a cowardly, feminine man you've turned out to be.  servant of the Lord

  97. Jim Robertson says:

    Dan, you have no proof of any god existing let alone your version and I'm the fool? You believe with no proof and I'm the fool.

    • Dan says:

      Jim, Did you even look at what proof I stated Oct.1 @ 2:44am? I just mentioned a small portion of proof in His Creation that He exists, and in the last paragraph how He proved that existence in saving me from the Hell that I was suffering on earth. You have absolutely no proof that He doesn't exist and disbelief works better for you so you don't have to face your sins. I get it, Jim. Sorry but as it says, Only a fool would say, "There is no God." I'm not calling you a fool, but the Creator who made you apparently is. Sorry about that.

  98. Publion says:

    On the 4th at 339PM JR wishes a correction to be entered: he said not that Anderson created SNAP but rather than “the church created Anderson and SNAP”.

    When we are already as far down the rabbit hole as JR’s TCC visions have already gone, then I say Sure, why not? Does it make the TCC any more plausible? Does it make the TCC any less implausible?

  99. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 956PM:

    In response to mine of the 3rd at 103PM, noting ‘Dan’s failure to answer various clear questions, ‘Dan’ once again doth bleat his now-familiar bleat: that since I am “such a flamin’ idiot” (the left-off ‘g’ is to demonstrate his much-man ‘cool’ or ‘kewl’ creds) that he doesn’t think my “ignorance and stupidity is worth responding to”.

    Also – and here we see just how sly and well-practiced in sleazy evasions ‘Dan’ actually is – ‘Dan’ didn’t want to “hog an open forum” by putting up answers to the questions … or, rather, my “ignorant comment and worthless questions”.

    If it’s ‘in the Bible’ pure and simple and clear as a bell that Jesus was born both in the reign of Herod and also a decade later in the time of Quirinius who replaced the deceased Herod, then how do ‘Dan’s divinely-inspired Scriptural chops explain that?

    If ‘Dan’ is not “sinless” and yet remains a “true Christian” then how do ‘Dan’s theological chops square that circle?

    What’s really “worthless” and “ignorant” in all this is ‘Dan’s stuff.

    • Dan says:

      I'm far from stupid or delusional as you like to accuse me of. I've listened to John Martignoni, catholic apologetic and founder of "Queen of Heaven catholic radio" in Birmingham, Ala.. I'm not going to play into your little game, like he suggests that you question the Christian opponent and see if you can throw him off. This is the Lord's answer to your silly questioning, so you can "square" your own "circles". Take your pick, which version suits you.

      "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes." 2 Tim 2:23 (KJV)

      "Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels." (ESV)

      "Abstain from disputes of fools who are without instruction, for you know that they generate conflict."

      "But foolish and ignorant questions avoid, knowing that they do they do produce strife." 2 Tim 2:23

      'If anyone teaches another doctrine and disagrees with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and with godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. Instead, he has an unhealthy interest in controversies and semantics, out of which come envy, strife, abusive talk, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind who are devoid of the truth [LIARS]."  1 Tim 6:3-5  Sounds pretty much to describe the publiar to a tee.

      So add to this your lies, slander, mocking and childish sarcasm, and I feel I'm under absolutely no obligation to answer to any of your stupid questioning. If you need answers to your ignorance, you should consult Google. I'm sure you'll find an answer you'll be satisfied with, seeing that you have such trouble understanding or accepting God's answers.  servant





  100. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1115PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will try to slather on more lardy frosting to cover his ill-baked Scriptural and theological cake: the questions – we are apparently to accept – dissolve or disappear or something if you have been infused with the “wisdom and understanding” that “God grants to His children who have faith in Him”.

    Thus – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ knows the answers to my questions, but he can’t tell me because God only sent the answer-fax to ‘Dan’. Sort of like classified information that’s been faxed to one person: if others haven’t received the fax, then they aren’t cleared for it and it’s obviously intended to be none of their business.  ‘Dan’ also knows the true purchase price of the Brooklyn bridge, if you’re in the market.

    This is what a nice tight delusional system will get you. But let’s not forget that ‘Dan’s delusional system (he’s a ‘prophet’, don’t forget) also requires that he insist that others accept his delusions or else God’ll getcha.

    And as a cherry to top it all off, if you don’t have the answers already, then you obviously aren’t on God’s Secret Compartmented Information clearance list, so you’re not worth ‘Dan’ taking the time and effort to answer you anyway. It’s all very hush-hush – doncha know? – at least until ‘Dan’ starts bleating, braying, and screaming.

    • Dan says:

      And more mocking ignorance. And you'll bake in the oven, while I have my cake and eat it too.

    • Dan says:

      And by the way, If you're dumb enough to buy into and defend the lies of your cult, and expound on them, then you're probably dumb enough to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. I saw a vision of the "Queen of Heaven" last night telling me to sell it to you for half price, 666 dollars.

    • Dan says:

      And she'll throw in some plastic rosary beads for ya.

  101. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 4th at 405PM:

    Again borrowing from his pea-pod mate ‘Dan’, JR will – following the opening scatological epithet – run the old I’m Not/You Are bit: he doesn’t “have pearls”, I do and myah myah myah. Such repartee.

    I “lied about [his] abuse”? In what way? One of his stories said ‘once’, a later version was multiple times over a long period. Both versions are in the record here from back when all this was considered at length.

    Does he want to go with ‘multiple times over a two-week period’ now? I say Sure, why not? And  thus the questions raised by the ‘two-week’ timeframe remain to be considered.

    So who – really – has “lied” about JR’s claimed abuse?

    He said he was “raped”; it was eventually revealed – by JR himself – that he was just (allegedly) crotch-grabbed.  He didn’t – to use his term here – thereby ‘out’ himself in that regard?

  102. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 405PM:

    But JR is – like his pod-mate – well-practiced in sly manipulation: his ‘lie’ bit has a larger purpose here: since I “lied” about his abuse – doncha see? – then I also lied about his theory as to who created SNAP.

    JR – doncha see? – just like his pod-mate ‘Dan’ has been bethumped by the unhappy fate of being surrounded by so many liars in his life; the poor things have just been lied about and lied about and for no good reason at all, since they are just innocent and heroic and truthy truth-tellers, ‘Dan’ in regard to (his version of) God’s truth and JR in regard to his own.

  103. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 405PM:

    “The money that SNAP required came from somewhere”. Logical enough but it hardly proves anything. SNAP wasn’t doing well (not much money coming in) / then Blaine met Anderson / and suddenly SNAP is flush with cash. An attorney familiar with the operation says the money came in great part from a kickback deal with the torties; JR says it was the Church – somehow. Readers may consider as they will.

    “Jeff Anderson couldn’t afford to keep SNAP afloat all by himself”. He didn’t need to: once the scheme was set up, other torties also sent monies (the Complaint, if I correctly recall, mentions several who made large payments).

    JR has to then somehow neutralize that possibility – i.e. of the torties sending along nice chunks of cash – by saying that SNAP didn’t do enough for the torties to have laid out that much money. Really? SNAP was the front-funneling organization that could hoover up the allegants that the torties were barred from soliciting on their own. Three billion dollars in settlements, and the usual tortie fee for such services being a third of the settlement (plus expenses). So a billion collected in fees by the torties. And “$18 million” was too much, says JR. I think not.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Lawyers can advertise. You dumb fuck.

      And yes you do think not.

      "Better Call Saul"? Lawyers advertise all the time for clients. SNAP just presented victims to the public through the media with lawyers already attached We were told by "our" lawyers to go to SNAP meetings and demo with SNAP. SNAP never gave me my lawyer. I found her on my own.


  104. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 405PM:

    And JR mentions Bishop-Accountability: would even another “$18 million” really be too much for the torties, considering how helpful B-A made itself to them, compiling a handy online reference base for aspiring allegants? 36 million – let’s say for the heck of it – out of a billion-plus? Too much? Throw in “Fr. Tom Doyle’s expenses” for – what? – another 5 or 10 million … ? Let’s even say all-told 50 million out of a billion-plus. Too much?

    Yes, it’s a lot of money. But so was the three-billion or more that the torties managed to snag. “Who else but the church had that amount readily available?”. Answer: the torties as they raked in the fees and expenses from 3 billion in settlements.

    “SNAP came from nowhere.” And it was going nowhere … until Blaine and Anderson had that meeting, a meeting that now even SNAP doesn’t really want anyone to talk about (thus claiming on its website that it was founded in 1989, to completely evade the 1988 Blaine-Anderson meeting).

    • Jim Robertson says:

      More lies. Being paid beause of damages done aint snagging shit. Next time you are in a car accident see how much you have to "snag" from your insurors.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Why wouldn't  the church want to know all the claims against it? B.A. was a reference point not only for victims but for the church. So it could know the numbers of victims and the number of defendents. It didn't help any victim to sue where they couldn't sue (and that was pretty much everywhere in the states.) 1989 and the scandal really broke in Boston in 2001 and there sat SNAP ready to rise, to pounce, to rule the victims who came forward. If the masses of victims couldn't sue. Why would the layers need to fund a SNAP? To gather victims who can't sue? Cui bono baby?


  105. Publion says:

    On then to JR”s of the 3rd at 903PM:

    I have never claimed to be “right”, unlike ‘Dan’ who claims that he is channeling God’s truth and JR who has just claimed that he is the only guy here who “tells the whole truth”.

    I’ve asked questions, proposed answers, and brought to bear such information and knowledge as I have that seems to be relevant. I leave the ‘being-right’ declamations and declarations to the ones who are always braying those claims out to everyone else.

  106. Publion says:

    JR (the 4th at 915PM) treats us to another popcorn-friendly claim: he doesn’t “speculate”, especially about “a conspiracy”.

    First, it might be proposed that he doth ‘insinuate’ more than he doth “speculate”.

    But then second, it might also be said that he doesn’t submit ‘speculations’ in their proper grammatical form; instead he simply tosses up his speculations as if they were incontrovertible and undeniable and crystal-clear, evidentiary-quality facts (and if you can’t see them as such then you must be an “idiot” and so on).

    And it’s yet another demonstration of JR’s sly evasiveness that when he – yet again – mentions what is apparently the 1985 Doyle Report/(Proposal) to the US Bishops he now sidesteps the non-existent term “secret” … but then thus leaves himself, ludicrously, with merely the word “committees” as the smoking-gun that will prove the validity (or at least the rationality and legitimacy) of his speculations-proffered-as-facts.

    Sly, he certainly is; smart … not so much.

  107. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 915PM:

    But wait. There’s more.

    In his sly effort to try to downplay the Stampede, JR proffers the point that we haven’t heard from one of those big classic Stampede settlements in a decade, so – he would have us conclude – there isn’t much of a Stampede and I’ve been exaggerating all along (meaning that there was never and has never been a Stampede at all in the first place).

    But reality – as reflected in his verb tenses – betrays him, alas. I have been saying for quite some time that the Stampede’s best days are behind it, referring, for example, to the “salad days” of the Stampede back in the past.

    But when the Stampede was in its “salad days”, then we most surely did see those classic big-bucks settlements (precisely what the long-established tortie stratagems were going for), and one of the largest was that 500-plus plaintiff case in LA a decade or more ago that JR mentions here (in which, readers may recall, JR snagged his bit).

  108. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 915PM:

    There was indeed a Stampede; its best days are behind it now and the current lawsuit against SNAP may reveal much more about its dynamics, but its basic template remains active in the media and the public mind, and the old tortie stratagem – which long predates the Stampede – remains in the legal playbooks.

    As for Australia: as I noted on the immediately prior thread, suddenly we have heard nothing since the prosecutors said they’d be sending along their charges and the supporting evidence to the defense very soon, which was back in the middle of the summer.

  109. Publion says:

    What to note about ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 723PM?

    He starts – as so very often – with an epithet, just to manipulate readers before they get to any actual content in his comment.

    Which might be considered a sly bit of foresight, since his content is merely a re-hash of his old bit to the effect that if you mock ‘Dan’ then you are “mocking … God and His servant”. No, I am mocking ‘Dan’s material; at no place do I mock God and we certainly haven’t established by any measure that ‘Dan’ is “His servant” in any but the most generic sense of the term (i.e. that all of God’s human creatures are ultimately His servants by virtue of their being created by Him).

    • Dan says:

      "But they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against His people and there was no remedy."  2 Chron. 36:16

    • Dan says:

      Sorry publyin', you're not "God's servant" if you're a lying hypocrite who follows and does the deceiving work of your father, Satan. Good try anyway, Mr. Mocking Deceiver. servant of God

  110. Publion says:

    Continuing with comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 723PM:

    He then slyly tries to downplay the “ego” element in that claim of being “servant” with some wordplay: “servant” is a term which by its very nature is not “a word of pride or ego”. Really? The way ‘Dan’ uses it and what ‘Dan’ tries to do with it?

    ‘Dan’s limited imagination would have us think of a butler or a chauffeur; but the older usage of the term “servant” could apply to the Grand Vizier or even all those who styled themselves at the beginning of the 20th century as ‘servants of the Revolution’, upon the authority of which ‘servant-hood’ they claimed to justify everything they did while ‘serving’ it.

    And we can’t forget that ‘Dan’ is a very very speshull “servant”, since a) he has special secret knowledge and b) cannot be judged by anybody according to any principles of rationality nor c) need he participate in any religion whatsoever (except his own ‘Dan’-made one) because of the special and direct and intimate nature of his relationship. A simple butler or chauffeur ‘Dan’ most surely is not.

  111. Publion says:

    Continuing with comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 723PM:

    One might also think of Tolkien’s dark emissary who comes to confront Aragorn’s forces at the Morannon, the Dark Gate of Mordor: the emissary identifies himself by declaring that he is merely “the Mouth of Sauron”. Thus that he has no mind or personality of his own but rather is merely an animate thing that will accurately convey nothing but the Mind, Word and Will of the still-incorporeal Sauron.

    Given ‘Dan’s own personality and mind and the many issues operative there, it is hardly surprising to see him attempting to extricate himself from himself by claiming here merely to be the accurate and specially-appointed thing that will do nothing but mouth God’s Mind, Word and Will … which, by the by, must be obeyed … or else.

    This is what a nice tight delusional system will get you.

    • Dan says:

      Your mind and thinking is a fake and fictitious as the fiction and cartoons you prefer to compare others to. Wake up to the reality that you're nothing but a lying fraud, spewing your ignorance as if it's the truth. Hypocrite.  servant

  112. Jim Robertson says:

    Sorry Dan now we're pod mates. The atheist and the evangelist. Only in P's mind. Also he invented the concept here of "pearl clutching". Then has the balls to credit me with creating it here. Gee I wonder if it's because I'm gay?

    If Dan and I are always wrong, according to P for brains, what does that make P, himself? neutral? always right in his head?  We are never right in anything we say according to him.He's the one telling us both how wrong we are. He invented the pod of wrongness he sticks the atheist and the evangelist in. Quite the same "peas" in that insane pod. I'm now placed with a religious fanatic as an identical twin. I told everyone here they were trying to hook me up with Dan. And color me with Dan's POV. And it's all P's idea; certainly not mine.

    What a useless waste of life you are P. If only your parents had had an abortion. Oh wait! they did.

    Step right up ladies and gents and meet P the abortion who's always right (right wing).

    Please don't bother to read anything I have to say here folks. P says I'm wrong and hooks me up with a guy who calls the Catholic church a cult. I've never called you that. Delusional yes cult no.

    Most Catholics don't have the time to be in a cult.

    P you never ask questions of me. That would make me an equal. You just lie. Like saying you ask questions. You don't. You ask questions of the readership but not of me. You're guaranteed never to believe anything I say. No questioning necessary. Why would you bother? All my answers are wrong according to you. The only question marks I see in your posts are rhetorical ones posed to the audience not to the person you're lying about.

    I ask the readership. look at the question marks in P's posts. They aren't questions asked of me. They are questions asked of you. What have you got to do with this? What do you know about the subject? P's here to control you not me.

    In answer to the amount of money SNAP was given by lawyers. Whose lawyers? If SNAP picked the major lawyers they weren't working for us. They were working for SNAP

    The lawyers had no need to give SNAP money. SNAP was rolling full tilt boogie from the get go. One does not travel nation wide staying at good hotels eating on credit cards without credit.

    Jeffy Anderson didn't have the cash to do that. And why would he want to? And why was SNAP even needed in all this other than to control us victims and what we said we wanted to the press and public. (Evidently we wanted to protect the unraped Catholic children and not to seek compensation for our own damages; because that's all SNAP talked about: Protect the Children. How is that a ploy by lawyers to get us, victims, (and therefor themselves)  maximum compensation?) It isn't.

    Look at what has really happened in all this. Only one state in only one nation got fair settlements. Why would lawyers spend $18 million if it didn't get them more money? Where were the SNAP victories for victims? A state senator passed a bill that allowed us to sue in California. SNAP had Barbra testify before a state senate hearing. That's worth $18 million over 25 years ? 

    Once we could sue here the lawyers and victims were guaranteed some settlements. But where's the rest of the pay off that paying for SNAP would give "our" lawyers? It's not there.

    We in California got  i/5th of the 3 billion P yammers about. Why would the lawyers throw out more money to SNAP with no paydays nor hope of pay come?

    The money SNAP lived on never came in to the people, you claim paid, for SNAP, our lawyers.  No. the money that the church should have been paying all it's victims was protected by a "survivors group" that never bothered to ask for damages for the people they pretended to represent.

    The truth about SNAP lies in the money that came to SNAP, and where it came from for 25 years.

    If Jeff Anderson wrote the checks for SNAP and BA why? What did SNAP bring in to Jeff to justify such support for so long? Certainly not the new settlements of any mass after California.  There were none.

    Follow the money. Doyle in his paper to the Bishops was very definite about who would be writing the checks for the "committees" he wanted the Bishops to form in his "heroic" paper to them about us. Follow the money SNAP lived on and who not only could afford to pay it but why any lawyer would pay it for no pay off. Why would real victims settle for 3 billion if they were owed more?


    • Dan says:

      Jim, I questioned google if the catholic church was a cult and this is the website that came up, Cult of Roman Catholicism.

      I think catholics should take a look at this, before accusing me of making claims that are untrue. It is a terrible cult and fits the definition.

      And Jim, I realize when labeling me a fanatic you mean it in such a loving way. If you only would listen to the Lord's Word, you would know your sarcasm to be quite the compliment.

      "I know your deeds; you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were one or the other. So because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of My mouth!  Rev 3:15-16

      So what the Lord was asking was that you either have to be a fanatic (hot) towards Him or not know Him at all (cold). If you're a halfway catholic or so-called Christian, then the Lord wants no part of you, and you ain't worth spit. Those who are only titled Christian, but fall far short in deed or belief in Christ, and would rather bow to false gods and goddesses (Mary). Pedophiles and compulsive pub-liars, their enablers and excusers being perfect examples of these types of deceiving hypocrites, only suitable for the dung pile.  servant of truth

    • Dan says:

      I want to be clear that I do not agree with the websites politics, nor do I have any political affiliation. I believe all politics are corrupt and not worth wasting my time or energy. Also, I do not agree with tithing to any church or donating for that matter. Find the poor and needy in your neighborhood and cut out the greedy wicked middle-man. TV evangelists and catholic EWTN are perfect examples of the false gospels of prosperity, always looking at bilking money from their brainwashed sheep. Look for the best things in life that are free, like reading and living the Word. God will never disappoint you.

  113. Dan says:

    I get your little sarcastic insinuation that I'm "channeling God's truth". You creeps are the ones that think they channel and have visions of their sinless Mary, "Q (i.e. Lourdes and Fatima). And she informs them to say the rosary and repeat their prayers, babbling like pagans and disobeying Bible Truth (Matthew 6:7).

    You don't have to claim to be "right". Your self-righteous attitude, snobby vocabulary and correcting to critcize opponents grammar speaks volumns. I haven't referred to you as Mr. Know-It-All based on your humility or respect of others. You're such a pompous deceiver.

    You've asked stupid questions, proposed lying answers, and brought to bear misleading information and Scripturally lacking knowledge, as you seem to think is relevant. You oink lies and ignorance, thinking you're "right" and have longwinded rude stupid answers for everything. This is how your comment should read.  servant of the Truth


  114. Dan says:

    "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of LIARS whose consciences are seared, who FORBID MARRIAGE and REQUIRE ABSTINENCE from FOODS that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." 1 Tim 4:1-3

    Now you're going to claim, as the compulsive catholic liar of this forum, that this quote does not prophetically describe your church, plaqued with false teachings and deceit. And you think you can label myself as delusional? You're deceit has no end, offspring of Satan.  servant

    P.S. Also check out 1 Tim 1:3-7, describing you in fine detail.

    • Jim Robertson says:


    • Dan says:

      Jim, Maybe if you got more sleep you'd be able to open your eyes to realize that I'm not just blowing smoke. If I truly didn't care about the souls of others, do you think I'd even be wasting my time in this forum. Apparently my work here isn't gaining me any friends. If the Lord sends a True Christian to do a job and he refuses, then God holds that person responsible for not carrying out the task. If I warn the lost to change their ways, but they refuse, well then I'm innocent because I've done my job. It's not based on whether my work is accepted or not. Sorry if God doesn't fit into your lifestyle or thinking. I do find it strange that you have no belief in Him, yet have no problem using His name or Jesus when you're angry. Why not say, "Oh my Dawkins, Hawking or Hitchens." Just doesn't have the same clout, now does it?

  115. Jim Robertson says:

    Something else i want to add. Look at how few lawyers have been involved in this stampede. Very few.20/30 tops if that and I'm being generous.

    Who's moving us cattle along P? To a corral where we can't sue? And laying out 18 million to do it? Not bloody likely!

  116. Publion says:

    I’ll dispense with ‘Dan’s most recent bunch quickly: nothing but a hash of the old lies-lies-lies bit, puffed with more pericopes going for the idea that since the prophets were questioned, and ‘Dan’ is being questioned, then ‘Dan’ is a prophet.

    Readers can judge the quality of that manipulative logic as they will.

    • Dan says:

      "Mock[ing] the messengers of God" and "scoffing at His prophets", does not equate to deceptive questioning backed with wicked "lies". Keep on justifying your ignorance, peewee.

  117. Publion says:

    On then to the JR bunch.

    On the 5th at 809PM JR tosses up an unusually long comment; he’s mixed up quite a batch.

    I don’t recall ever attributing the creation of the term or practice of “pearl-clutching” to JR and if he has a quote that demonstrates otherwise he’s welcome to put it up here. But there’s a method to his madness here: he was trying to work in some angle where he might somehow come out as a victim … of something. Of anything.

    As I had said (the 5th at 630AM), I am not in the right-or-wrong business; I just ask questions. This isn’t something either JR or ‘Dan’ can handle so now JR tries – yet again – to make himself a victim by claiming that I have said that he and ‘Dan’ are “always wrong”.  Thus the second paragraph of the comment, having failed through gross inaccuracy, riffs on further into far left field.

    But they are both peas of the same pod in terms of their cartoon approach to real issues, their whacky ‘logic’, their efforts to manipulate readers or else browbeat them with epithets, and their insistence – for different reasons – that they are right and their stuff must be accepted.

    There follows a one-liner paragraph with yet more epithetical snark – which, as I have said, reveals the unripe adolescent world that JR, though almost 70, still inhabits and has never grown beyond.

    Ditto the next paragraph, a one-liner riff on the previous one.

  118. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 809PM:

    Then the next paragraph is a riff on the originally inaccurate bit about my saying JR is “wrong”. Also, marvelously, JR expresses his distaste at being in any way considered similar to ‘Dan’, although his material has already established that actuality regardless of whether JR likes to think about it or have it pointed out.

    Then more sly efforts at getting his blocks to form just the shape he wants: since I “don’t ask questions of” JR, then that “would make [him] an equal”. Naturally the ‘logic’ of this assertion escapes a rational mind but JR isn’t really going for a logical presentation here. He’s simply trying some form of word-game (so very similar to ‘Dan’).

    But then if JR is my “equal” and I “just lie” then – the transitive property applies here – JR doth “just lie”. But again, JR isn’t going for logical presentation here – and actual logical presentation may be both beyond his capacities and also repugnant to his basic shtick.

  119. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 809PM:

    I question material. I allow readers to consider the questions and the material questioned and allow them to make their own judgments. This is precisely not the JR/’Dan’ method, where they have their shtick, and you’d better believe their shtick and their stuff or else they will call you names and threaten you either with bodily harm (JR) or God (‘Dan’). They have to control readers’ assessment of their stuff.

    JR then tries to bolster that bit with something to the effect that readers don’t “know about the subject”. That’s perhaps what they are counting on. But readers can recognize logical points and they can recognize illogical assertions and claims and judge the probabilities one way or the other. Again the JR/’Dan’ method necessarily requires that readers don’t do that much thinking about the stuff JR and ‘Dan’ put up.

  120. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 809PM:

    Then JR will get down to proffering some specific points in regard to his own ‘theory’ and the questions I have raised about that theory.

    He claims that “SNAP picked the major lawyers”. Actually, Anderson picked SNAP because torties couldn’t be seen to go chasing allegants; it violates professional conduct standards. SNAP, once indentured to the Anderson strategy, simply opened itself to whatever local torties stepped up to play.

    And ultimately, it was the responsibility of each allegant to sign the agreement for representation with this or that tortie.

    Thus to the claim that “the lawyers had no need to give SNAP money”. D’Antonio clearly states that SNAP had been going for several years before Anderson came along (which is what JR said too, claiming that SNAP started off as a small outfit in donated quarters before 1988) but SNAP was not doing well, which changed greatly once Blaine and Anderson met in early 1988.

    Under no circumstances – if D’Antonio rather than JR is to be believed – was SNAP “rolling full tilt boogie from the get-go”. JR has to somehow neutralize this reality in order to plump for his TCC theory, i.e. that the Church lavishly funded SNAP from the get-go whenever it was in the years before 1988 (or, as the SNAP website now claims, 1989).

  121. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 809PM:

    And – again echoing points that have already been demonstrated to be questionable – JR claims Anderson “didn’t have the cash to do that”. Anderson was a well-established tortie and ran a big office and remunerative practice well before SNAP came along. And all he needed to do was prime the SNAP pump with some seed money. The larger amounts of ‘donations’ would come from torties as the cases were settled over the years and the Stampede got really rolling.

    SNAP “was needed” – yet again – as a front/funnel organization since the torties couldn’t go out and hoover up allegant/plaintiffs on their own. That why Anderson would not only “want to” engage SNAP (and perhaps similar organizations) but would also very much need-to do so.

    The “Protect the Children” mantra was the high-sounding moral cover that cast the torties as the Good guys against the Evil bad guys of the Church. This made the whole scam very media-friendly, since they could now go to town with the old Good-vs-Evil script. The media had Good guys helping ‘victims’, the torties had allegant/plaintiffs whose stories could be burnished and guaranteed not only wide but friendly and even protective media coverage (protective in the sense that it was presumed that any claim was a veracious ‘report’ and to question that presumption was merely to ‘re-victimize the victim’ and so on).

    Thus JR’s assertion that such a scam could not at all be a “ploy by lawyers to get [allegants] maximum” money fails utterly. It was a sly, shrewd, and successful ploy that paid off its investors handsomely.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      But P The "Protect the Children"line wasn't about the victims. It was about the unharmed.

      Why would you talk about the unharmed when you have bodies all over the place who were harmed? Anfd when you claim to be for the victims??? Not puting non victims as THE topic before real victims and our damages and needs are ever discussed. It makes no kind of sense.

      But then you and  common sense never do see eye to eye do you P?.

      You're here to make nonsense sense. That's your job. 


  122. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 809PM:

    If memory serves, JR’s assertion that “only one state in only one nation got fair settlements” seriously needs some evidence-references since all he proffered the last time he tried to make this point was some partial list from a Wiki article from the way-back. In reality, the torties have gotten at least 3 billion in settlements and had to have garnered a solid third of that in fees (exclusive of ‘costs’ and ‘expenses’).

    And what, then, is this “rest of the payoff that paying for SNAP would give” to the torties? A billion in fees (exclusive of ‘costs’ and ‘expenses’) isn’t enough? JR’s “it’s not there” assertion fails here utterly. SNAP’s usefulness paid off the Stampede’s investors handsomely.

    Thus too it beggars description to adequately characterize the inaccuracy of JR’s assertion that “the money SNAP lived on never came in to the people you claim paid”, i.e. the “lawyers”. A billion dollars came to the “lawyers”, exclusive of ‘costs’ and ‘expenses’. If the settlements were achieved – and they most certainly were – then the money that went to the torties was taken out first, before any checks were cut to the allegants and before any ‘donations’ were made to SNAP (and perhaps similar organizations).

  123. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 809PM:

    SNAP “never bothered to ask for damages” … ? The torties did that, to the tune of 3 billion. SNAP’s indenture to Anderson required it be a front/funnel organization; the torties themselves would be the ones to “ask for damages” through the lawsuits. Does JR understand nothing about the law? SNAP had no legal standing to “ask for damages”.

    And then he’s back to “why” Anderson “wrote the checks” again. Anderson – like all the torties who ‘donated’ – did so to keep the front/funnel organization(s) going.

    As to when the torties realized the game was starting to falter, and when they finally decided – if they ever did – to cut back on the money … is a question that might be answered in the Discovery phase of the current lawsuit. I imagine SNAP hasn’t been living so high off the hog in recent years and at this point any income would be liable to involvement in the current lawsuit – which is probably why donations in Blaine’s memory are being directed to Bishop-Accountability rather than SNAP (though how long B-A remains above the legal fray here is an interesting question).

  124. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 809PM:

    Wearing his Gumshoe Wig through this whole bit, JR now proffers the old maxim to “follow the money”. For his own purposes he has to proffer the cartoon that it was Doyle and the Church. But – alas – the Bishops rejected Doyle’s Proposal of 1985 and its “committee” idea. What Doyle wanted and what the Bishops decided Doyle was going to get were antithetical; they rejected his Proposal.

    As for the “no payoff” for “any lawyer”, that ludicrous bit has been dealt with above here.

    And as for JR’s final stab at mimicking a Gumshoe with his concluding ‘question’ – i.e. “Why would real victims settle for 3 billion if they were owed more?” – a) who says they were “real”; b) who says they “were owed more”; and c) why did JR settle for a measly million if he thought he was owed more?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Because I couldn't sue in court. I was part of the settlement. But I couldn't sue in court because I had attempted to sue in the 90's  and those who had were unable to sue again. It was not double jeopardy ie the church couldn't be sued twice. It was a technicality about separation of legislative and justice  branches of government. So I personally could not sue but I and a few others were included as part of the settlement in order for the entire settlement to go through.To protect themselves from losing 1000s of millions more by the victims who could sue going to trial the church and it's insurors settled with all of us.

      Kowing P he'll try snd make those of us who were included this way cheats or thieves even more than he usually does. But the simple truth is were sexually abused and therwere damages done to us because of the abuse. Shithead will deny it all because what else has he got? He's a one note samba.We're bad and he's the gumshoe to prove it by lying. What he accuses us of doing, he 's doing.

      Sad! if he were smarter he might have been more moral but he's not. If he was faithful to his religions tenants he'd have shown respect and kindnes but he's too mean for that. Tar with a broad brush anyone who accuses the church of anything. Truth doesn't matter. 

      Also I'm not quite sure where you get the $3 billion figure from. Name your authority. If it's the church I wouldn't believe them. The bigger the number they put out the more they can cry victim and weknow how much money the church has hoarded over the eons crying poor mouth and victimhood.

      And just think what money the church will have to pay the people it's cheated when my analysis and the truth of the Doyle fraud comes to light. Delicious! Money mmmmmm! The one thing you,truly, hold sacred:MONEY.

      Why the church wouldn't even be covered by insurance for practicing criminal fraud. Even if I and every other victim of this fraud are long dead when the truth "appears", your church  will never be the same. Bye bye power. "The truth will out"

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 7th at 1248AM:

      Once again, the ‘Dan’ opening: it’s just “more lies”, while larding in more of his scatology.

      When a person is in a car accident, there are wreckage and medical damage and perhaps witnesses, with plenty of photographic and medical-record evidence for third-parties (such as juries and judges) to consider.

      There were very few, if any, such things in these allegation-cases. So the auto-accident scenario doesn’t at all apply to what passed for ‘cases’ in the Stampede.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 7th at 1258AM:

      The Church would not have needed B-A to “know” the claims against it. The lawsuits filed would have informed the Church far more reliably than B-A’s mere collation of every news article (not to say ‘report’) they could find on the Web. So this JR bit – that the Church could have or did set up B-A so that it could “know the numbers of victims” is inane in the extreme. Nor did B-A keep a formal and accurate tally of all the lawsuits so as to give a comprehensive picture, so the “number of defendents” bit (he probably meant ‘plaintiffs’) also fails utterly.

      The first John Jay Report made that tally, not B-A.

      It is also ridiculous to assert that ‘victims couldn’t sue’ “pretty much everywhere”. Clearly they could do quite a bit of suing, and the torties enlisted SNAP to make sure those that wanted to sue were advised to check with their local tortie. Curiously, although some states have now re-jiggered the Statutes of Limitation, we haven’t seen a recent re-ignition of the Stampede at anywhere near its original force and energy.

      Thus JR’s concluding mimicry of the cocky and competent Gumshoe fails – yet again. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 7th at 115AM:

      I don’t know how many torties have been involved and neither does JR, except by mere pronouncement (he pronounces 20 or 30 and claims he’s being “generous”). Does he have any references to back up that bit?

      But what would be the point of knowing the number in the first place?

      And are the torties “moving us cattle along .. to a corral where we can’t sue?”. What does this mean at all? That the torties – however many or few – are the ones trying to corral plaintiffs in a no-can-sue corral? Are we seriously – and without reaching for popcorn – to accept that there is a conspiracy of tort-attorneys in this country that is assiduously working to prevent people from bringing lawsuits?

      We are here down a rabbit-hole as deep as any ‘Dan’ creates.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 7th at 439PM:

      We had gone over this the first time JR tried this point quite a while back.

      Lawyers can advertise, but it’s tacky. The Stampede needed a very serious ‘high-ground’ image; these attorneys were going after the Church, after all. So ‘Do you want to sue the Church? Call this 800-number’ wasn’t really going to do much for the image of the torties; also it would reveal the Stampede as just another tort-attorney grab for money and clients wherever they might find them.

      Thus a ‘victim’ organization such as SNAP was a godsend, as Anderson saw. The torties could look not like ambulance-chasers trying to make money off ‘victims’ but rather as knights in shining legal armor coming to the defense of the victimized.

      Plus, while in a TV ad a tortie just has to hope some viewer somewhere picks up the phone and dials the 800-number, with a front/funnel organization they are delivered in a convenient and tidy bunch.

      And a numerous bunch of ‘victims’ would quickly fuel the (media-assisted) public impression that there are scads and scads of such ‘victims’ out there, which would create a self-sustaining and self-enlarging wave of more allegants and plaintiffs, figuring the surf was up and it was time to wax the board and toss it in the water. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 7th at 507PM:

      Confronted with the question about this mysterious “man” whom JR claims (take that for what it’s worth) to have given “a check to BA that floated it for a year” we are given a clear idea of just what a stellar Gumshoe JR really is.

      If this “man” (named something like “Puddles” … ) were an agent of the Church, would he have gone to a SNAP conference to deliver it? Would the Church even have given something as traceable as a check?

      And as far as “he wrote a book and was hocking it at the 2008 SNAP conference in Chicago”, I can only point out that D’Amato’s book didn’t come along until 2013.

      Doyle had two associates, a psychologist and an attorney. They were both named in his Proposal, if memory serves, and the attorney was not Anderson.

      Then JR – so much like ‘Dan’ – simply dives into his own 3×5 pile and starts tossing all sorts of things into his stew-pot here.

      From which – apropos of nothing on the table – he concludes that it was “not SNAP” that “pulled our lawyer’s chains”. Well I would say that it was the lawyers pulling SNAP’s chain, and not the other way around anyway. And if anyone here has seen a worthwhile indication that the Church was behind all the lawyers and SNAP, then they are welcome to point it out.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 507PM:

      And once again, Doyle’s “program” was rejected by the Bishops. And SNAP surely doesn’t qualify as any “secret committee” that JR – channeling the loon Economus – claims were mentioned in the Doyle Proposal.

      But we get a nice recap of the JR TCC theory: Doyle’s (rejected) 1985 Proposal “was the battle plan and the matrix for SNAP; BA; Anderson the whole chrade” (sic).

      But suddenly JR shifts Wigs: wondering if Blaine might have merely been a “stooge who obeyed Doyle and Anderson until it finally dawned on her what SNAP was”. She bought into the scam in 1988 / and are we to imagine that she didn’t know about all the money the torties started sending along? / and that she didn’t give much thought to the fact that SNAP employed almost no therapists and made no substantive provisions for actual counseling of those who came in the door?

      And by amazing coincidence it was the reality of a lawsuit and not just some innocent personal realization that immediately preceded her demise.

      But this gives JR the chance to put on his rarely-used Milk-of-Human-Kindness Wig. Alas for poor Babs, who – are we to forget? – was a honcho in the SNAP that “ignored” his “election”, thus exciting his “rightful anger”. Yes, that Milk just oozes from JR as from a leaky cow.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 7th at 543PM:

      He insists that he wasn’t dumped by SNAP (after he tried to lead a palace coup through some ‘election’ he wanted to have). Readers can file this assertion of his personal history with the rest of JR’s bits.

      If SNAP “ignored” the “election”, perhaps that was because a) SNAP didn’t have elections in the first place and b) as a front/funnel organization for the torties, SNAP couldn’t afford to let some ‘election’ throw it off-message and off-purpose, both of which involved fronting for the torties and funneling prospective allegants to the torties.

      I’ll stand by my assessment of JR’s vengefulness. Nothing he’s revealed about himself here – especially unwittingly – would indicate the inaccuracy of that assessment as far as I can see.

      And are there now “people” rather than an individual teacher who “molested” him? Another new twist to the old story?

      As the vengeful might easily say “Anything wrong in wanting to get those ‘em’?” And as the South Boston murderer and mobster Whitey Bulger has said: I never killed nobody that wasn’t tryna’ kill me.

      But JR’s just a lil ole victim, he’d have us believe.

      And – by the by – he already put himself on record as trying to get me when he made the death-by-shotgun threat a while back.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 543PM:

      JR then delivers a line that might best be delivered to his bathroom mirror: “Why would anybody believe you?” And heads – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – for the Victimy-highground by painting himself as just soooo “naïve” and taken advantage of by the Church (so – one might conclude – he, like Whitey Bulger, never victimized nobody that wasn’t trnya victimize him).

      Following JR’s ever-bouncing ball, he left SNAP in 2003 and … was “elected SNAP leader in 2007”. And if that isn’t enough to trigger the popcorn-please alarm, this ostensibly legitimate organizational election was “ignored” by the organization … and nobody seems to have raised a ruckus over such an illegitimate travesty of the by-laws. Or, perhaps, the “election” was a rogue bit of agitprop and ignored because it itself was in contravention of the by-laws. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 543PM:

      Was SNAP “a democracy” according to its by-laws? Why didn’t the dissidents go out and start their own group?

      I don’t recall using the term “nuttiness”. Is JR creating a quote for his own convenience?

      At any rate, he was simply filled to overflowing with “rightful anger” (as was Whitey Bulger when people were tryna whack him, which to Whitey happened anytime anybody did something he didn’t like). That’s why JR “had a beef” … as did Whitey Bulger, so many many times.

      SNAP, I have always said, is indeed a “false flag”; it was a front and funnel organization for the torties, at least from early 1988. And that guaranteed SNAP’s ‘success’ for the past quarter-century and more.

      And – yet again – JR is a ‘victim’ because it was somebody else’s fault that he “hired” the lawyer he did. And then – as some readers may recall – berated that lawyer long after the check was cashed for taking her fee.

  125. Jim Robertson says:

    Anybody who thinks an imaginary sky fairy compelled sheep herders to write the only book we are to believe is a special kind of stupid.

    There's no God. No Jesus. No Mary. It was all a political control to make it easier for the rich to manipulate and rob you, me and everyone else.

    You want to devote your life to what can not be proven to exist or to have ever existed. You are free to. What could be more boring than lengthy bible quotes? Oh yes, Pliars posts. Dead heat actually.

    And Dan thanks for the child like promise that I will burn in hell after I'm dead while you eat sugared deserts in the sky after you're dead. That shows your intellectual age level.


  126. Jim Robertson says:

    "Ooooooew Jesus is going to give me candy". Sounds more like Santa Claus than the God of the OT (except for my being in Hell of course.) Burning forever is pretty Old Testament. Along with not eating shrimp or wearing cotton with polyester (esther? :^)).

    How far did you get in school Dan? You are obviously not genetically stupid.(I would say P fit that description.) When did you bet the farm on a life after death and the Bible as a, sorry THE, only magic carpet to get you to Glory? Asking for a friend.:^)

  127. Dan says:

    Like I previously said, you're getting more annoying than publiar. I guess we'll just have to wait until it's all over to see who the stupid one was. I think you've been listening to one too many stupid atheist cartoons. Although I fail to remember cursing you to Hell, be well aware that the teaching of Hell is just as prevalent in the New as in the Old. God never changed His teachings on sexual immorality, but He did change rules against eating shrimp, FYI. And explain to me how you feel all yours and publiars crap about SNAP has somehow become more interesting than your prospects of eternity. You atheists dwell in such small box of ignorance and blindness. All your cute little stupid infantile comments denying the Creator, talk of sheep herders and sky fairies definitely display your lack of intelligence.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Ask me if I give a fuck that you find me annoying?

      You've no business here anyway. YOU are annoying and boring and wrong. Go away.. Find a street corner.

      Christ! when a Protestant can call a victim annoying for telling the truth on a site dedicated to putting forward Catholic propaganda against it's very own child victims. Its insane.

      I don't care if you like me. Your liking me is not the issue here. The Catholic faith is not the issue here. GET IT?

      Go away! You bring nothing real to the table. Take your bible and shove it.


    • Dan says:

      May the Lord bless you, Jim.

  128. Jim Robertson says:

    Hey asshole! Yes, you the other one, P.

    Asking for compenation is not limited to lawyers. Where did I ever say SNAP were lawyers? That's your line. SNAP posed as a "survivors" organization and "survivors" groups can talk about compensation publically all they want. Why didn't SNAP? You say it's because our lawyers were doing it for them. That lie won't wash. SNAP avoided talk of damages and compensation like the plague. With no reason to, other than they were working for the church and not for the victims.

    You know shit for brains. You can lie and obfusdcate and blow smoke and namecalltill the heavens fall but you're still just wrong. willfully wrong. knowingly wrong. Completly wrong.

    All your snobbery and pathetic arrogance and attitude, and high horsedness can not save you from being a lying sack o' shit. When a lying sack of shit is what you want to be. When being that is your career.

    You can't win against truth P. The truth always comes out in the long haul. I'm very confident in that.

    I stand by the truth that everything I've said about the false flags that are Doyle and SNAP and you will one day out. I'm committed to telling the whole truth about this little fraud of yours.

    What truth are you sure of P?  Have you ever told the truth? Why does the truth frighten you?


  129. Jim Robertson says:

    And really can't lawyers give money to victims groups if they want to?

    Where's the criminal act there? The suit against SNAP is over unjust termination. Did a lawyer write on aheck somewhere "this is a kickback"? SNAP's employee noticed that; mentioned it to Blaine and she was canned? I don't see any criminality. Wrongful termination maybe but criminal act? I don't get it.


  130. Jim Robertson says:

     Or is this "trial" about more smearing for the sake of smearing. No criminal act just another opportunity to smear victims by innuendo. SNAP takes money from victims lawyers SNAP fires an employee for mentioning that  and since SNAP represents all victims. SNAPs mistakes smear all us victims because SNAP says that SNAP IS us. SOS new day.

  131. Jim Robertson says:

    Asshole, my lawyers fee jumped from 33.3% to 40% because of how long it took before settlement. Those xtra months cost me about $120,000. 

    Again what did SNAP do for victims? We could have stood with our lawyers like any other plaintiffs in front of the Cathedral for a press conference. No one needed SNAP for anything. We were told to support SNAP because SNAP was "good". Our lawyers told us (like Charly Manson told his girls to do what ever Tex Watson tells them to do.) to go to SNAP. Of course we thought like P that the lawyers were funding SNAP. We also thought that obeying our lawyers was what we should do for our own cases. Why not? no wrong there. The only people who weren't happy with SNAP were about half of us with more education. We were treated like props wheeled out at press confrences to verify not ourselves but SNAP. We were treated like stupid children who must be controlled from St. Louis and or Chicago.When we wanted democracy we were denied it. Why? Udo the first ignored elected head of LA SNAP still doesn't believe what I say about SNAP. Yet he was cheated by them. Our democratic votes were ignored. Denied really. Why? Why was SNAP there? It was to funnel victims to lawyers yes but why those lawyers? Couldn't SNAP have had lawyers bid for our cases? Don't you think there might be a mass of torties willing to take on the church for us in L.A. in 2003? They weren't there. Even Gloria Allred only had 2 or 3 of our cases. It was all too fishy.

    Why can't you take what I say at face value and investigate my claims?

    Why does little squealy turd just dismiss what I say out of hand with no investigation? A hand wavy dismissal of my claims and questions s enough for P. If TMR was above board when it passes itself as a truth teller. Why not be aboveboard equally. Why don't they investigate. A little scratching and all is revealed with this charade.

    P says we benefited, when the majority of victims got nothing. We say the church benefited by paying far far less than it should thanks to SNAP's inaction. That's easily looked into.Look at what called press conferences about and were they, SNAP necessary there? Or is TMR not interested in finding truth only promoting a certain "truth"?  Just as you say SNAP did. Well if SNAP could do it why couldn't you? If they can sin why can't you?


  132. Jim Robertson says:

    Here's one of your lies. I quit SNAP in 2003. Their was no palace coup if that's what you need o call it by me untill 2007 2008. They couldn't kick me out when I hadn't been in since 2003.  I as a victim and all other victims superseceded SNAP and it's shit. SNAP never kicked me out ever. They just ignored my election as they had Udo's before me and he was much more in their camp than not.

    Remember we were the victims we were used weekly sometimes daily by SNAP in front of the press at the Cathedral. Guess who lived the closest to the Cathedral? Me. My business I'm there. When I say used by SNAP I mean the reason the press would come was because some new part or person in the scandal had come forth been outed what have you. So I had to stand next to SNAP to stand with victims. I was never kicked out of SNAP office yes SNAP no.


  133. Jim Robertson says:

    Piece of shit ,How dare you compare me to a fucking murderer? Who the fuck do you think you are? The only person I ever want to kill is you. I'd snap your lying neck like a stick and shit down your throat. You deserve to die for how you talk to people. Too bad your heart doesn't explode. Oh  my mistake. You've no heart..

    This is a threat motherfucker to fucking KILL you. I don't give a damn anymore. I will murder you while you sleep. You deserve to die as soon as I can make it possible. You've fucked with me for the very last time. you're very last time. I'm hiring a computer genius to find out who you are. Then I'll get you. You will be found dead. Going to prison for murdering a dog like you would be an heroic gift to the planet. Best get your dead soul straight I'll be sending you to your maker very very soon. That's a fucking promise.

  134. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    Of the three questions I posed at the end of my comment on the 7th at 1025PM, JR will here try to answer only the third. And what do we get?

    He “couldn’t sue in court” so he was just “part of the settlement”. it apparently has to be pointed out to him that being a Party to a lawsuit means that one is very much suing, and the fact that the lawsuit (by which one sued the Party Defendant(s) was concluded by settlement (which had to be approved by the cognizant court) does nothing to alter the fact that one did indeed “sue in court”.

    If he had “attempted to sue in the 90’s” and “those who did were unable to sue again” then this raises far more questions than it answers. Since the suit in the 90’s was merely “attempted”, then why was that? Why did it fail (presuming the lawsuit was actually filed)? And if by virtue of that lawsuit in the 90’s another lawsuit could not be brought, then was it – as the formal term has it – Dismissed With Prejudice … ?

  135. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    If it was Dismissed With Prejudice then that means that it was dismissed “on the merits”, meaning that the court found against the Plaintiff’s (JR in this case) claims and thus the Plaintiff could not file another lawsuit on the same claims against the same Party Defendant(s).

    If the 90’s lawsuit was indeed filed, and adjudicated and consequently Dismissed With Prejudice, then it is indeed interesting that JR somehow managed to essentially file the same lawsuit again in the mid-00s. But it was the salad-days of the Stampede and the L.A. complaint, with 500-plus Plaintiffs, was a doozy so perhaps some legal loophole was found or else – given the vast number of Plaintiffs – JR managed to sneak onto the gravy train, with or without the knowing connivance of his attorney.

    When you are confronted with both a) the almost-inevitable oddities of Stampede cases and b) JR’s stories then there is rarely going to be a reliably clear answer to obvious questions.

  136. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    Nor is anything clarified by the bit about “a technicality about separation of legislative and justice branches of government”. You can only sue in the Judicial forum; you can’t bring a lawsuit in the Legislative forum. So this bit of JR’s as proffered here makes no sense.

    And “a few others” hardly accurately describes a 500-plus Plaintiff lawsuit. But if there were indeed some smaller group-let that was allowed to participate in the 500-Plaintiff case, then on what basis could that have been? And – curiously – we have JR, who pronounces himself indubitably truthy and informed about so many Stampede matters, who cannot here clearly recall and sensibly explain the basis of his own (rather remunerative) lawsuit participation.

  137. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    Nor is any sense to be made of his further bit about it being necessary for him and his group-let to have been allowed to participate “in order for the entire settlement to go through”.

    Nor is any sense to be made of his bit that the Archdiocese and its insurers acquiesced in order to “protect themselves from losing 1000s of millions” (that much, really?). And how would the inclusion of the JR-group-let have prevented further suits by “the victims who could sue going to trial”? None of this makes any sense at all. One might even call it a smokescreen or blizzard of chaff (released to confuse and evade radar detection).

  138. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    Having dumped that confusing load on us, JR – apparently realizing it might all be kind of dubious – then tries a preemptive strike against any questions: he bleats that I will try to “make those of us who were included this way cheats or thieves” … well, I didn’t use those terms but the possibility, upon consideration of JR’s proffering here, does certainly raise the possibility that JR himself has already put on the table.

    But it was the Stampede and it was California and it was Victimist ‘law’ and so who knows what might or might not happen when those three are all tossed into the same stewpot and the stove is fired up?

    In any event, what this whole bit does do is to remind readers of just how profoundly deranged the Stampede cases and Stampede litigation could be.

  139. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    And thus a further bit that I will say that those – certainly this new JR-grouplet – are “bad”. I didn’t say they were “cheats and thieves”; JR put that on the table.

    All I’ve done – as usual – is to ask questions of proffered material. I haven’t claimed to “prove” anything and if anything I’ve just put up in this sequence can be shown to be “lying” JR is welcome to point it out.

    Then he tries to wrap the bit up with the familiar ‘Dan’ I’m Not/You Are gambit.

    Then the Wig of Pious Bleating as JR doth ruefully consider how un-smart and immoral I am. JR, like ‘Dan’, might spend more time in front of his bathroom mirror when delivering his favorite little speeches.

  140. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    But don’t touch that dial – there’s more.

    As if he is new to the Stampede, JR doth opine that he cawn’t quite see where I got the figure of 3 billion dollars. That’s the generally accepted figure. One need only enter into a search engine some term like ‘most recent estimate of costs in Catholic abuse cases’. The National Catholic Reporter – no friend of the hierarchy – put the number in November of 2015 at 3.99 billion and considers it “underestimated”. That actually works out to almost 4 billion, actually.

    And from that question, JR then changes course: where he usually gave a large amount to back up his Stampede scare-visions, he now pooh-poohs large numbers because it means the Church can “cry victim”. But the NCR is surely not a hierarchy-friendly source. Does JR have a lower-ball estimate made by some at-least-modestly credible source?

    And from what we’ve seen over the years – and up to and including the shenanigans in  his own 500-plaintiff LA case – is it at all beyond the realm of possibility (if not probability) to consider that the Church was the target of a tortie-fed and tortie-led Stampede that could derange legal praxis?

  141. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1019AM:

    But don’t touch that dial – there’s more.

    JR tries to bring the whole performance home by then painting a picture of the glorious Day when his “analysis and the truth of the Doyle fraud comes to light”. it may well be a “Delicious!” and consoling pipedream to a manipulative and delusional mind, but I if any Day be coming – and the current lawsuit against SNAP will quite probably hasten it – it will be a Day when the Stampede is exposed for what it is and has been for decades. Surely, even the shenanigans behind his own recent revelations indicate where things are heading.

    And he raises – marvelously – the concept of “criminal fraud”. That possibility, even probability, has already occurred to me, going over his stuff.

  142. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1052AM:

    Once again, JR opens with a scatological epithet, just to remind us what we’re dealing with here.

    Apparently JR is now going for the claim that he didn’t really mean that SNAP had to file lawsuits when he said it should have ‘asked for compensation’.

    Well, if SNAP – according to my theory – was a front-funnel organization for the torties, then why would it distract itself from its indentured task in order to do something that the torties themselves were going to do, to the great remuneration of all of them?

    And is it true that in all of its public statements over the past three decades and more SNAP never once supported “compensation”? I find that hard to believe. Can JR demonstrate the validity of that claim (or presumption)?

    If I recall correctly, even the SNAP website mission-statement clearly states that it supports victims’ going to “civil attorneys” (a nice term for torties) in order to be advised of their legal rights.

  143. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1052AM:

    Thus then, it has not at all been demonstrated that I “lie” when I point out that the torties – if my theory is correct – would be doing the heavy-lifting in the “compensation” department.

    And if SNAP – as JR himself says – was not comprised of “lawyers”, then it would not be well-advised to be giving legal advice about “compensation”. Instead it would be better advised to simply urge people to consult a competent attorney in that regard – which is precisely what even its own mission statement does.

    So much for JR’s Gumshoe Wig.

  144. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1052AM:

    And he tries to bring the performance home by more scatological epithets while simultaneously accusing me of ‘name-calling’.

    Upon which queasy cake he then lards the frosting of truthiness: he is – doncha know? – very confident that “the truth always comes out in the long haul”. Why, how can I not agree? Look how much more JR has revealed here recently that we never knew before.

    And the whole thing concludes with more Wiggy posturing about “truth”. Yah.

  145. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1106AM:

    Commenting on mine of the 7th at 1021PM JR will try more word-games: the mantra “Protect the Children wasn’t about victims … It was about the unharmed”. What would be the point here, in the context of my comment (which was itself commenting on his mention of it)?

    It would have been deployed to capture the public wave of concern over the harming of children, thus giving the torties and their Stampede a very media-friendly Good Guy cachet.  That’s PR 101.

    And just how many “bodies all over the place who were harmed” there genuinely and actually were is and remains un-demonstrated and – I would say – increasingly questionable.

    What really “makes no kind of sense” to JR is that his own rantings and schemes were not well-received and somebody’s gonna pay for that. He’ll cook up a ‘theory’ that get’s ‘em all. But he never goes after anybody that isn’t tryna get in his way – that’s his moral code.

  146. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1114AM:

    Here JR apparently is trying to plump for the torties. Readers can consider this bit as they may.

    The gravamen of the current lawsuit is not that the torties made donations , but rather that there was a quid-pro-quo scheme where the donations went to groups (or at least one notable group) that fed clients to the torties themselves, especially in a situation where there was an almost-certainty that such clients were going to garner very very substantial sums. That type of arrangement might well qualify as a kickback scheme and that’s the problem.

    What JR doth “see” and doth not see is what it is and what else need be said on that score?

  147. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1123AM:

    Now – and had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt? – JR will finally get around to the trusty old “smear” bit: if you ask questions, then you are ‘smearing’. There was – quotha – “no criminal act”. Well, at this stage it’s a civil lawsuit – which by definition is not a case in the criminal forum.

    Depending on Discovery and perhaps the outcome of the suit, some cognizant prosecutor might decide to bring charges against one or more torties involved, or at least the cognizant Bar Association or Court (in different States, the disciplining of attorneys is overseen by one or the other). Such disciplining is rare, especially when you have a well-connected tortie, but it’s theoretically possible.

    And – marvelously – JR doth huff and harrumph about the “smear by innuendo”. That’s rich.

  148. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 920PM:

    Opening as usual with a scatological epithet he doth wax wroth about how large his lawyer’s fees were. And after they went to all the trouble of getting him included in the lawsuit to begin with.

    “What did SNAP do for victims?” he again asks. As I have said so very often here, it performed as a front/funnel organization to bring victims and torties together for the run at the piñata. Few if any of the ‘compensated’ seem to have found the arrangement unsatisfactory.

    He claims “no one needed SNAP for anything”. I think that assertion would clearly need some explication and verification. I doubt many people today remember any agitprop bits like standing in front of a cathedral, but all that cash is in the bank.

    He now claims that the allegants all “thought like P that the lawyers were funding SNAP”. Did he now? They why get mixed up in the whole scheme? He actually answers that: because it “should be done for our own cases” … precisely so. There was money to be had if one went along with the torties and … wasn’t the money kinda the primary point?

    And as he even further – and marvelously reveals – “Why not? no wrong there”. Precisely so.

  149. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 920PM:

    The popcorn alarm is then tripped, however, when JR opines that he was one of only half of the SNAP-goers who were dissatisfied (not, however, enough to back away from the cash) because – had you been waittttinggggg forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – he was among the half “with more education”. Ovvvv courrsssse.

    Apparently he joined an organization that had no provision for elections in its by-laws, tried to get himself elected, and now claims he is a victim of having been “denied … democracy”. But SNAP wasn’t, to all appearances, a ‘democratic’ organization. Hadn’t he read the by-laws?

    He then goes further down the victim path by claiming that he was “treated as stupid children who must be controlled”. Readers will have by now read a very recent comment of his (the 10th at 1200AM) that would give some indication why he might have been treated like that.

  150. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 920PM:

    He then asks “Why can’t you take what I say at face value and investigate my claims?”. Seriously? His “claims” don’t hold up even under the type of examination one can undertake in an online forum, and that’s been explicated at very great length for a period of years now.

    Thus – epithets aside – I have investigated as far as can be done in this forum and the results are in the record for anyone to consider. And as even JR has claimed so often, I don’t do “hand-wavy”; I go to great length and in detail; that, indeed, is what irks JR no end.

    He wants TMR basically to take his stuff as truth just because – he claims – it takes my material as truth. That’s apparently how it works in his mind: no matter what he says should “equally” be considered true. To his mind that’s how the game is played, because to his mind it’s all a game, and even truth-telling is just a game.

    But this is also an echo of the old victim gambit: you believe my story and I’ll believe your story and we can get on with “our cases”.