FACT CHECK: In Reporting on the Death of Cardinal Law, the Boston Globe Forgot to Mention Its Own Role in Creating the Scandal

Kevin Cullen : Brian McGrory : Michael Rezendes - Boston Globe

Faces of bigotry (l to r): The Boston Globe's Kevin Cullen, editor Brian McGrory, and Michael Rezendes

It was enough to prompt sheer revulsion in any decent human being. The Boston Globe treated the death of Cardinal Bernard Law less as a news story and more as a gleeful celebration and an opportunity to again bludgeon the Catholic Church.

At one point, the Globe actually trumpeted the headline, "'I hope the gates of Hell are swinging wide open'." Then the Globe's boastful Michael Rezendes seized on the occasion to pen a self-congratulatory piece about his work on Spotlight. It was all truly disgusting.

Indeed, a couple years ago, when the word first broke that Cardinal Law was in ill health, the Globe actually touted the sobering news over a photo of Boston Cardinal Seán O'Malley laughing. (One subscriber happily commented, "O'Malley appears to have the same reaction I did to hearing Out-Law was in ill health!") Classy stuff. See for yourself:

Boston Globe : O'Malley laughing : Sept. 30, 2015

Any questions? In 2015, the Boston Globe posted this photo of Cardinal Seán O'Malley laughing
under the headline that Cardinal Bernard Law was 'in ill health' (September 30, 2015)

Therefore, it was no surprise that the central focus of the Globe's reporting on Law's death was not on the man's life but on his handling of abuse cases decades ago. And, most notably, there was not a single syllable at all about how Cardinal Law relied on the advice of so-called "expert" therapists when dealing with abusive priests and determining their fitness to return them to active ministry.

This is important, because it was the Boston Globe itself who back in 1992 – a full decade before the paper's Spotlight tsunami – enthusiastically trumpeted the psychological treatment of sex offenders as "highly effective" and "dramatic." Hence it was the Globe itself who played a critical role in fostering the conditions for the scandal.

New-therapy-Globe-June-18-1992-pA1

Front page of the Boston Globe: June 18, 1992

In a front-page article on June 18, 1992, the Globe blared:

"A new generation of treatment programs for sex offenders is proving highly effective, dramatically reducing the percentage of cases in which offenders repeat sex crimes, research shows.

"Recidivism rates declined from 9 percent for untreated offenders to 5 percent for those who underwent the new treatment in one study, and from 38 percent to 6 percent in another.

"While there is no complete 'cure' for sex offenders, the new findings indicate that many of them can learn to manage their aberrant sexual impulses without committing new crimes. The promising new treatments focus on helping these offenders control the complex cauldron of social inadequacies, distorted thinking, and deviant sex fantasies that prompt them to rape women, molest children or exhibit themselves in public."

By this very article the Globe confirms that the Church's then-practice of sending abusive priests off to treatment was not just some diabolical attempt to deflect responsibility and cover-up wrongdoing, but a genuine attempt to treat aberrant priests that was being widely promoted by secular experts in the field.

Boston-Globe-June-19-1992-priests-therapy

The Boston Globe : June 19, 1992

And the very next day in 1992, the Globe also published another article seemingly endorsing the manner in which the Catholic Church handled abusive priests:

"[Those who treat sex offenders] and other specialists said many offenders can be returned to active ministry so long as the clergy and their supervisors accept lifelong restrictions and follow-up care."

The Globe went on to say that "society will suffer" if offenders are not afforded therapeutic treatment, as such measures are "cost-effective" and successful.

An-offenders-right-to-treatment-GLOBE-June-26-1992

Boston Globe editorial: June 26, 1992

Indeed, with regards to Cardinal Law's handling of abuse cases, an eye-opening 1989 letter to the Archdiocese of Boston (< < < must-read!) from an expert psychiatrist insisted that it was "both reasonable and therapeutic" and "clinically quite safe" for John Geoghan – one of the Church's most notorious molesters – "to be reassigned back to his parish" after undergoing extensive therapy, even though he had a voluminous record of criminal abuse.

It is unbelievable. The Globe promoted psychological treatment for sex offenders in 1992 – including the Church's own treatment programs for offending priests – and by 2002 the Globe acted in mock horror and scolded the Church for doing in 1992 exactly what the Globe itself said it should be doing. And the dishonesty continues today.

Indeed, the hypocrisy and corruption of the Boston Globe's reporting on the Catholic Church never cease to astound.

SEE ALSO:
Sins of the Press: The Untold Story of The Boston Globe's Reporting on Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church by David F. Pierre, Jr. (Amazon.com);
'Spotlight' EXPOSED: The review that Hollywood and the Boston Globe do not want you to see.

Comments

  1. Norm says:

    Well eventually the Globe is going to have to move on and do something else…

  2. malcolm harris says:

    The Globe seems to be setting new levels for blatant hypocrisy. But, in a wider general sense, am beginning to suspect that strange things happen to people…. when the subject is the Catholic Church. Observe how intelligent, and usually articulate people, suddently become seemingly irrational.  A good example of this phenomenon came from the New York Times, about two years ago. A senior journalist said… "we have been at war with the Catholic Church" Well… somebody should have invited that lady to visit a veteran's hospital. Where she could have asked the wounded about the religion of their enemies. None would have said the bullets and bombs came from Catholics. Another religion would have been mentioned… not Catholics. And some of the wounded veterans in the hospitals are actually Catholics.  So how could any intelligent person have said what she said.? My only explanation is this…. bigotry….it does strange things to people.

    • Dan says:

      And you Malcolm, publiar and all the rest of the liars and excusers of your cult, should be able to spot "blatant hypocrisy", since your church has shown such a fine example of "hypocrisy" for centuries. When it comes to the Catholic Abuse Matters against innocent children, they have become the prime example of hypocrisy, lies, denials and deception. You would think you guys would be hesitant to point your fingers at anyone else, but we know that's what hypocrites are best at.  servant

  3. Dan says:

    Are you kidding me, "the Boston Globe forgot to mention it's role in creating the Scandal"?

    Let's get this straight! The Catholic Church totally created the scandal. "The Church" is entirely 100% responsible. The Boston Globe only exposed "the Church", "the Scandal" and it's secret wickedness.

    Did the Globe rape, sodomize or molest little children and minors? Was the Globe plagued with pedophiles, pederasts, perverts and their excusers, and did they destroy the lives of little ones and their families? Your church's hierarchy committed these crimes against innocence. To attempt to place blame on anyone besides yourselves and those in your cult, who have turned a blind eye to the disgusting works of the devil infiltrating "the Church", is disingenuous at best.

    • Dan says:

      Why does it always have to be someone elses fault (the media, witch-hunt, bigots, haters, psychiatrists, etc.)? As long as "the Church" is unwilling to take responsibility for its malfeasance, nothing will ever change. From what's displayed so far, there seems to be no chance for repentance, change or forgiveness. All there is is excuses, lies, coverups, SOLs, death and secrecy. RIP catholic church, your days are numbered and your destruction is on its way.

  4. Mark Taylor says:

    Indeed, there have been some terrible things written about Bernard Law since he passed but I don't think people would like it if those same things were said about Barbara Blaine, and yet after what she did to Fr. Jaing, they would apply just as much to her.

  5. Richard w Comerford says:

    Mr. Dan:

    The Boston Globe has indeed had its own sex scandals and is undergoing yet another one now. The Boston Globe published "puff peices" on some of the worst offenders before it decided to take Cardinal Law down. The Boston Globe also ignored and surpressed pleas from help from the victims and teh families of victimes. 

    The Boston Globe only went after Cardinal Law when Senator Edward Keenedy (RIP) was running (again) for re-election and Cardinal Law dared to publicly correct the Senatpr on thteChurch's teaching regarding womrn priests. 

    Nothing, of course, could stand in the way of the Senator's re-election. Prior to that the Boston Globe had sat on this story for decades as long as the Boston Catholic Church acted as an extention of teh Kennedy political machine. 

    Be careful who you worship.

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

  6. Dan says:

    Mr. Dick says, "Be careful who you worship." If only catholics would pay special attention to this statement. If you claim you adore, venerate, honor and revere any gods or goddesses, other than the Almighty God and His Son, you have committed the horrible sin of idolatry. Now there is a lamebrained commenter, who thinks that to call Christ's mother, "Queen of Heaven", to bow down and pray in repetition (unbiblical) Hail Mary's until you want to vomit, is not worship because Mary is not a goddess. When catholics perform these forms of worship and then deny their worship, all they have done is add lies to their slew of lies. She was not sinless, for only Christ and God are sinless. Was not the Immaculate Conception. Was not Assumed into Heaven. She is not Christ, and for "the Church" to make these horrific claims is deceiving and Satanic, just as he wanted to be equal to God, you're attempting to make Mary equal to Christ. WORSHIP! If this was the only problem with the cult, this would be enough, but it has added greediness, sexual immorality with children and little boys, unbelief, murder, and a slew of deniers and liars to it's so-called religion. You might want to "be careful who you worship."!!

    • Richard w Comerford says:

      Mr. Dan

      Thank you for your reply. 

      WIth you this is not a matter of the abuse of innocents or predatory priests or corrupt bishops, is it?

      You hate Roman Catholics. You are an anti-Catholic bigot. You are exploiting a tragedy in order to satisfy your narrow minded ways. 

      And in doing so you do not worship Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; but yourself.

      Be careful who you worship.

      God bless​

      Richard W Comerford

    • Dan says:

      Dick, My immediate family, nine of them, all catholics. My closest and best friends, all catholics. People in my neighborhood that I have no problem with, catholics. Even at the churches where priests and cops slandered and falsely accused me, I made some catholic friends. When I became a Christian, I didn't throw away my friends or family and start hanging with religious hypocrites. In fact, I actually drew closer to the catholics in my circle. So, apparently you're wrong about my "hate" of "Roman Catholics".

      Dick claims, "You are an anti-Catholic bigot. You are exploiting a tragedy in order to satisfy your narrow minded ways." First off, Dick, I said nothing against Cardinal Law's death, but will leave judgment and justice unto my God. I'm "narrow minded"? If you think that means I have to agree and accept religions teaching a false gospel of idolatry, whose hierarchy molests and rapes little boys, and is plagued with liars, deniers and excusers, who think they can minimize and deceive the world into believing that they are the One True Church of God, then that is ridiculous. So that would make you a hater of God, His Holy Word and His Son and label you an anti-Christian bigot. Can kind of backfire on you, eh Dick? Be careful who you worship!

    • Dan says:

      "I do not sit with the deceitful, nor do I associate with hypocrites. I abhor the assembly of evildoers and refuse to sit with the wicked."  Psalm 26:4-5

      Dick, are you going to tell me that David was a "hater" and "anti-Catholic bigot", when he had no idea of the hypocritical wicked religion called Catholicism that would manifest itself in the future. No Christian would associate themselves with nasty lying hypocrites and deceivers. That is in the Word.

  7. Publion says:

    The Globe took a rational approach in the 1990s: if an institution has some problematic members then it needs to take some action / there is action available that can be taken / let the action be taken.  And in the article cited from June 26, 1992 the Globe clearly approaches the subject from the then-regnant ‘therapeutic paradigm’ (which in many cases is still the go-to paradigm for assorted social ills and derangements today … but not in regard to the Church).

    I would say that what changed at the Globe had much to do with the arrival of a new editor in 2000 or 2001 – who, we recall, saw himself as something of ‘a new sheriff in town’ and needed to make a splash.

    With the dominant local paper thus eagerly and willingly re-positioned, the local torties’ (strong Democratic political contributors) ever-sensitive antennae sensed glowing opportunities that had not previously existed.

    Ditto, the assorted political and cultural interests that accrete around a large, urban, Democratic and university-dense enclave realized that the change at the Globe opened up heady possibilities, especially in the direction of an ever-intensifying secularity and Political Correctness and all the political and cultural sequelae involved.

  8. Publion says:

    The late Cardinal Law – it seems to me – was a politically-active prelate in his Boston years; that is to say: he did not merely allow himself to occasionally be in the news by virtue of his office (as was the case with his predecessors Cushing and Medeiros) but rather he involved himself with some relish and notable competence in the role of a political and cultural major-player.  And under the rubric of ‘ecumenism’ he could reach out in a number of ways beyond the traditional Catholic prelate of an earlier era.

    And with the second Bush having replaced Clinton and with post-9/11 concerns guaranteed to give foreign policy and international politics a distinctively activist and military (and thus Republican) tinge, then an issue that might focus ‘secular’ and ‘liberal’ concerns and perhaps take down one of secular-liberalism’s biggest obstructers (i.e. the Catholic Church – and perhaps by extension all organized religion) … would seem to be a hugely valuable (and remunerative) undertaking for all concerned, especially for the ‘new sheriff in town’ who orchestrated the front office for the whole thing … which, as we know, was precisely the cultural and professional kudos that the new editor was seeking.

  9. Publion says:

    Thus we find the Stampede beginning in January of 2002.

    The poster-child was the late Geohagen, nephew of an influential ranking priest in that Archdiocese and who had always demonstrated a lack of maturational suitability for the vocation noted even by his seminary teachers but who was allowed to be ordained in a regrettable but hardly rare example of institutional politics (i.e. his aforementioned uncle).

    If memory serves, Geohagen, by then in his 50s or 60s, was raised into the glaring public light by the Globe for, among other things, the dodgy habit of swimming with parish children in public pools and occasionally lifting the children out of the water. There were some questions as to how a child with swim trunks on could be finger-raped during that process and within sight of so many witnesses, but such concerns were considered mere quibbles that didn’t justify obstructing the larger purposes of his hugely public prosecution.

  10. Publion says:

    The presiding judge sentenced Geohagen to the maximum possible prison term because – as I distinctly recall her being quoted in her sentencing remarks – she ‘just knew’ he had done more.

    He was later killed in prison by another solitary-confinement prisoner who not only managed one night to leave his own (oddly) unlocked cell but also managed to enter Geohagen’s (weirdly) simultaneously unlocked cell. The prisoner – in a bleat that should not be unfamiliar to current readers of this site – then claimed that while he might have been a lot of things, at least he wasn’t a child-molester and so on.

  11. Publion says:

    A second priest, Shanley, who had been lionized in an earlier era for his street ministry to abandoned or homeless gay teens, was given similar press and judicial treatment, especially when he was granted a re-trial or higher-court reconsideration (if memory serves) and the prosecution was reduced to concluding its case by urging that to find in his favor would ‘send the wrong message’, regardless of such problems in the case as the re-trial demonstrated. (A similar final decision was decreed in the case of the last remaining  incarcerated (and male) Fells Acres Day-School teacher – the Massachusetts version of the California Satanic Ritual Child Day-Care Abuse cases.)

    And by that point the local torties had perfected their ‘machine’ strategy, i.e. bringing numerous lawsuits and presenting the Church and the insurers with the predictable dilemma of either a) spending large amounts to defend against each accusation (in an era of inflamed public opinion) or else b) settle cases without trial.

  12. Publion says:

    I have never agreed with Cardinal Law’s decision to depart Boston. For that matter, I always thought of him as personally being more of a political-cultural than a specifically religious figure.

    But he was a shrewd judge of things political and perhaps he realized that in the face of a Globe-bruited Stampede he would not only a) fail to turn back the tide but rather b) would simply provide the biggest trophy imaginable, with his head to be mounted on the Globe’s trophy wall. (The Aussies tried to run the same play just last summer, as did the Irish a few years ago and the Dutch a few years before that.)

    Perhaps the then-aging John Paul II – himself no stranger to orchestrated Stampede campaigns, having lived through and under both Nazi and Soviet regimes where this sort of thing was part of their standard Playbook – saw things in the USA and Boston through that lens rather than through the Globe-preferred narrative of Heroically Rescuing Pure Innocence from Total Evil (think Victim Tied to Train Tracks, Oncoming Train, Leering Mustachioed Bad Guy, and Heroic Rescuer on White Horse, as in the old silent movies and various cartoons).

  13. Publion says:

    I would also point out the following:

    Several times on this site I have noted that torties have largely (and shrewdly) avoided ‘advertising’ in Stampede cases: it would make them look more like ‘ambulance chasers’ and less like the heroic fighters for genuine ‘victims’.

    New York State opened up a window more than a year ago, in which the Statutes of Limitation (SOLs) would not apply and allegants could do their thing without that hindrance.

    The window was due to close on November 1st of this year. And apparently desperation was the mother of invention.

    On October 23rd of this year, on page 20 of the print edition of the New York Post there was a full-length half-page multi-color ad soliciting anyone who might like to make a call and tell their story. There is “a fast approaching deadline”, it warned pleadingly, so “Don’t delay – contact us immediately to protect your rights and submit your claim”. “Free initial consultation”, it burbled beguilingly. In the small print, was the admission that this was “Attorney Advertising”.

    It is addressed to anyone living “in the Archdiocese of New York … which covers parishes in Manhattan, Staten Island and the Bronx as well as Rockland, Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Sullivan, Ulster and Westchester counties”.

  14. Publion says:

    Fast forward to page 23 of the New York Post print edition of December 8th of this year:

    From that heavily populated area over all those years and decades, a total of 189 people were all that could be brought forward, and they would split 40 million dollars (for an average payout – the paper helpfully did the math – of $211,600).

    The paper was also careful to describe these persons as having “identified themselves as victims of clergy sex abuse” (italics mine). That’s certainly a change from the salad-days of the Stampede when anyone coming in with a story and a claim was immediately and gratuitously granted the title of ‘victim’ (and you’d better not question that title if you knew what was good for you).  

    This was as close, I would say, as the torties could come to trying to set up an equivalent of the Mesothelioma fund (about TV ads for which I wrote a while back): many corporations were made to contribute to a fund now comprising billions of dollars / and you “don’t even have to go to court” / you only have to call a participating tortie (800-number provided on the TV screen), submit a claim, and it will be considered by a hearing- officer / (the implication strongly being that you will then get a payout almost as easily as going to an ATM).

  15. Richard w Comerford says:

    Mr. Dan:

    Your hatred of Roman Catholics is evident by the very words in your posts. You are abusing the already abused victims by taking advanatge of their tragedies in order to  launch public attacks on Roman Catholics.  In so doing you present yourself as an all knowing minor diety without pity for either the aformentioned victims, sinners who failed in their duty to the victims and the actual evil doers. 

    Be careful who you worship.

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

     

    • Dan says:

      Hey Dick, How dare you try to lay blame on others for the "abusing" of innocent children, when the perpetrators of your cult are totally the guilty culprits. Worthless deniers and excusers like yourself, constitute the very reason why these disgustingly deviant so-called holy creeps got away with the repeated sexual crimes against mostly young boys (80%) and little girls. You are such a jackass for claiming I "present [myself] as an all knowing minor diety without pity for … victims". You are right that I have no pity for the disgusting "sinners" of your cult who've destroyed victims lives, and then deny, deceive, lie and refuse to come clean. That includes those like yourself who think they can place blame on others (the media, bigots, anti-catholic haters, psychiatrists, etc.), in an attempt to clear your evil consciences and protect and hide the horrific sins of your cult. This is not repentance, it deserves no forgiveness, and all who continue in this ignorance will someday stand before the Almighty God and be judged severely for their stupidity and lame excuses.  servant of the Lord, a minor diety, you are ridiculous, lying slanderer!

      P.S. Keep your phony "God Bless" for yourself. You're gonna need it!

  16. Richard w Comerford says:

    Mr. Dan

    Thank you for your reply. 

    You are making pubic and annonymous (therefore cowardly) attacks on Roman Cathoilcs under thue guise of complaining about Cardinal Law. Cardinal Law is dead. He has been judged. As you and I will be. There is no escaping Almighty God's justice.

     

    Be careful who you worship.

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

    • Dan says:

      Dick, nothing could be much more "cowardly", aside from your cults systemic obsession with pedophilia and pederasty crimes against innocence, than the false accusations, lies and slander I've had to accept from catholic priests, nuns and cops. Added to the ridiculous lies, that cost me several jail and hospital stays, have been the lies and slander of publiar and now you've joined the fray. Get something straight, I abhor "Roman Catholicism" and all false teachings and have no hatred towards duped and brainwashed "Roman Catholics". You repulsive liars, deniers and slanderers, I will generously include as part of "Roman Catholicism", along with the greedy, sexually perverted, idolators, cowardly and all other lying and deceiving creeps of the cult.

      "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  The book has been opened, the light is shining in the darkness and the indiscretions of your cult remain secretly hidden no longer. Read Romans 1:18-28 further describing your cult in fine detail. That ain't good enough, go to Rev. chapter 17 and 18 and read of "Roman Catholicisms" final destruction. "Awake, O sleeper and rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Be careful who you worship!

  17. Richard w Comerford says:

    Mr. Dan

    Thank you for your reply. 

    You have deserted the one true faith. Meanwhile you attack its faithful adherents. In public, but annonymously. An act of a coward. You think you are the only one who has suffered? Stop whining. Time to grow up. 

     

    Be careful who you worship.

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

    • Dan says:

      Your programmed, "Thank you for your reply." and "God bless" at the end, demonstrates to your phony hypocrisy. Get a life and stop acting like you're some Christian. Catholics are not Christians, otherwise they wouldn't add ignorance and stupidity to God's Word. ANTI-CHRIST!

  18. Dan says:

    Dick, have you been falsely accused by compulsive liars and had to go to jail and hospitals 6 times each? Done 30 days in a Sherriffs Work Program, based on lies for things you never said or did? Since these accusations were made in public, while I was out there trying to wake up catholics to their false religion, then this didn't happen "annonymously", dumb Dick. Have you ever experienced the cold pig slop you get served in prison, and worse in mental wards. You're really becoming a bigger accusing catholic jackass than publiar. Catholics should be proud.

    "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me." Matthew 5:10,11

    I never would have thought that the accusations would come from jerks who belong to the evil cult that claims to be the One True Church. Someone took your sandwich in the schoolyard, so you think you can make up for it by bullying others. I have no fear in standing up to cowardly lying hypocrites like yourself, in person. You think you're a man to lie and accuse me as you have, anonymously in posts? You duped and brainwashed accusing catholics are an absolute joke.

  19. Dan says:

    "Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did." 1 John 2:6

    Checked out pope Francis celebrating Mass honoring Mary as Mother of God, in St. Peters basilica New Years. Do you dare to think that the hierarchy of your cult "live as Jesus did"? All you see is the abhorrent greed of an anti-Christ cult, idolatry in all its splendor, gold everywhere and the finest marble floors. You think Bernini wasn't making a statement designing a bronze canopy supported by four obese black snake columns. Like Michelangelo painted Hell in the Sistine Chapel, right at altar level, the very location where popes are secretly chosen. Nothing but a bunch of pomp and circumstance, ridiculously phony manmade rituals and terribly unChristlike. So continue honoring and worshipping your false "Mother of God" and be deceived into thinking you "live as Jesus did". Nothing more foolish than a fool who thinks they can even fool the Almighty.  servant of the One True God

    • Theodore JORNA says:

      Did Our Lord true God and true Man honour Mary his Mother? What did the Angel Gabriel say to Mary? What did Elizabeth say to Mary?  But whom am i that the Mother of my Lord should come to visit me. Was the Angel and Elizabeth honouring Mary???

       

  20. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Dan

    Thank you for your reply. 

    Again you are publicly attacking Roman Catholics. Again annonymously. Again an act of cowardice. There is nothing in your posts that indicats that you are aconcerned with the victims. Only with yourself. Stop feeling sorry for yoruself. Be a man. Return to the Faith of your Fathers

     

    Be careful who you worship.

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

    • Dan says:

      I've been exposing the disgusting crimes of the filthy hypocrites of your cult against innocent victims in this forum for two years. You're going to claim I have no concern for the victims of catholic child abuse? You're a lyin' accusing jerk. Where've you been? Return to the faith of your father, the devil and father of all liars and accusers.

      "You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."  John 8:44

    • Publion says:

      No doubt he didn’t plan to do so, but on the 31st at 108PM ‘Dan’ gives a pretty nice demonstration of his usual bag of gambits:

      First, the huffy bray of the Wig or Outrage (“how dare you …?”).

      Second, the mere assertion of precisely the point that has yet to proven, i.e. that there are astronomical numbers of “perpetrators” … “of your cult” (as if there were and are not abusive types in just about any human agglomeration one might care to name). Which is then further riffed-upon by larding assorted epitheticals as if the point-in-question had been demonstrated.

      Third, the name-calling (with the extra frisson of just a tad of scatology), “jackass”, tossed at his interlocutor.

      Fourth – delivered with a sublime lack of self-awareness – we get the sassy bray that ‘Dan’ hath “no pity for disgusting ‘sinners’ of your cult”. ‘Dan’, of course, commits no sins although he doth acknowledge “occasional mistakes” … but that’s OK – doncha see? – because ‘Dan’ is so very speshull a mouthpiece of whatever it is or they are making regular (and totally supportive) appearances in his bathroom mirror. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 108PM:

      Fifth, ‘Dan’ will then gratuitously include his interlocutor as being “those like yourself who think they can place the blame on others”. We haven’t actually established, of course, the true extent (or lack of it) regarding the point-in-question in the first place; but ‘Dan’ is nothing but a whacky plop-tosser and if he didn’t have plop to toss then he’d have nothing at all and would have to face himself in the mirror instead of that ‘divine’ cheering section he apparently sees in that mirror in his bathroom.

      And one also notes the sly and convenient inclusion of “psychiatrists” in ‘Dan’s bestiary … he’s seen more than a few.

      Sixth, the theological assertion from the ‘Dan’-verse’s ongoing theological Mad Hatter’s Tea Party as to what constitutes “repentance” and what does not and who gets forgiven and who does not and cannot be forgiven and so on.

      Seventh – but of course – ‘Dan’ heads for his conclusion, as so often, with a threat involving God (or, actually, whatever entities ‘Dan’ sees in his bathroom mirror).

      And lastly – but of course – the performance is wrapped up with more epithet. And then a P.S. with another threat involving divine retribution for disagreeing with ‘Dan’s self-serving agenda.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 638PM:

      Here ‘Dan’ takes the opportunity to recite yet again his preferred narrative that is supposed to explain-away his numerous court and psychiatric misadventures: it was all “lies” – doncha see? – and really the poor bethumped thing was just “trying to wake up catholics to their false religion”.

      I would at this point note that he was in “jail” and not in “prison”; is he aware of the difference? Or was he actually sentenced by a court to a genuine term in prison? But “prison”, of course, gives it all that Biblical ring, such that ‘Dan’ might see himself as participating in the tribulations of the Apostles. Rather than being a version of the local village-idiot put in the pokey for a day or so to get him off the street.

      And of course none of this happened “anonymously” (correction supplied). He accosted people in public, the police were called, the police heard the complaints of the persons thus accosted, took their information, and carted ‘Dan’ off to the local hoosegow and thence court and thence to the local “mental ward”). Six times. 

      The last paragraph wanders off into something about sandwiches in a schoolyard and bullies. But – fear not! – ‘Dan’ hath “no fear”. But I would say that he has a very great fear: that if he hadn’t populated his bathroom mirror with what he fancies are divine (and utterly supportive) entities then he’d have to see himself as he really is.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 749PM:

      Here he yet again riffs on about Catholicism, this time about the papal Mass “honoring Mary as Mother of God”.

      His objection? Why the hoary old fundie chestnut about the Church that does not “live as Jesus did”. Ummmm – Jesus did not have the internet (and most likely not a bathroom mirror, either). ‘Dan’ clearly has both. So – if you follow his ‘logic’ here – ‘Dan’ doth not “live as Jesus did”.

      And he riffs on in that mode for the rest of the comment, tossing up this and that bit from his 3×5 pile. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1156AM:

      Here – in case readers might think otherwise – ‘Dan’ puts up his preferred narrative of himself: he has “been exposing” and so on.

      He’s just concerned for “the victims”, doncha see? I don’t think so at all. ‘Dan’ is concerned for nothing but himself and his preferred self-narrative, i.e. a (or ‘the’) oh-so-speshull and divinely-authorized anti-Catholic and anti-organized-religion kinda guy.

      And he then tosses a bunch of devil-related epithets at anyone who doesn’t buy his bit.

      And he concludes by tossing up a pericope that – as so very very often – would better be delivered to himself in his bathroom mirror. 

    • Dan says:

      The publiar, who claims he never makes excuses or minimizes the crimes of catholic perverted priests and bishops, states in regards the "astronomical numbers of 'perpetrators' … 'of [the catholic] cult' (as if there were and are not abusive types in just about any human agglomeration one might care to name)". Yes, "human agglomeration[s]" of the world will have its share of horrific sinners, but when a church claiming to be the One True Church of God sports so-called holy leaders committing sins against innocents more disgusting than the world, one would have to question their holiness to realize they are not God's church. That's period!!

    • Dan says:

      As to your other denials that you don't mock God and feel no fault in mocking His servants, and yet think you can bring God down into your infantile bathroom mirror fantasies and "oh-so-speshull" and "divine cheering section" accusations. Appalling! Get your head out of the toilet, for your repetitive lying and denying hypocrisies are becoming complementary to your insistent mockery.

  21. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Dan

    Thank you for your reply. 

    You have exposed nothing. You are just another annonymous (and cowardl)y party on the internet. You are merely repeating old news. Some of it true. Some of it false. Mostly you are whining> WHen you are not whining you are attacking Roman Catholics who, unlike yourself, have not desrted the faith when it became fashionable to do so.

     

    Be careful who you worship.

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

    • Dan says:

      You excusing catholic deniers are always trying to convince everyone that the crimes of your cult are "old news". And I didn't leave "the Church" because it was "fashionable". I left because it was teaching unbiblical falsehoods, because of it's terrible greed, idolatry, sexual deviance and more recently have come to realize what a bunch of liars the church harbors.

  22. Dan says:

    Well here we go again. Publiar claiming that I don't "live as Jesus did" because "Jesus did not have the internet". Once more he opens his fat lying mouth and gets his foot stuck in it, or should I say forked tongue gets in the way. I do not own a computer or cellphone. So I guess following your 'logic' I am living and do "live as jesus did". My friend that I'm taking care of, the one who receives prophecies from the Lord, is the owner of the computer. When she's well enough for me to move back to my own place, I will not be purchasing or in need of a computer. That will be a blessing not to deal with you lying hypocrites. Before you carry on that we have to take Dan's word for it, check with Dave and he'll confirm that the email I'm using belongs to a female, and I don't even have an email address. How does it feel to always end up looking so ignorant and stupid, publiar.

    • Richard W Comerford says:

      Mr. Dan

      Thank you for your reply. 

      I think the problem is that you spend so much time feeling sorry for yourself. You then go on to attack Roman Catholics. This method destroys your credibility. Kindly reflect.

       

      Be careful who you worship.

      God bless​

      Richard W Comerford

  23. Dan says:

    Well actually, Dick, I spend very little time feeling sorry for myself. Between you and publiar constantly pushing one to have to explain themselves, is the only reason why you've heard what you have. Actually what you and your lying cult members, including hierarchy, have done to falsely accuse and slander me, in reality brings me much joy. It fulfills scripture (Matt. 5:10-12) and that makes me extremely happy, though I do have a normal human reaction to persecution, when people who falsely think they're the holy and righteous people of the world, think they can lie, slander and verbally accuse the innocent, and believe there will be no price to pay. I have a very fine positive life that I live and I can put up with the lying deceiving creeps from your cult. I was one of the first public school altar boys for the church in S.F. and I'm so thankful the child molesting priests of my church didn't lay their disgusting hands on me. I have way too much to be thankful for to allow Satan's workers to cause me any harm, so keep trying. True Christians will always lack "credibility" among the liars and deceivers of Satan's cult, the catholic church. "Kindly reflect" for Dick - Try reading the Bible instead of believing in the lies of your cult's catechism.  servant of the Lord

    • Dan says:

      FACT CHECK for Dick: I'm not here to tell my story or defend myself. I'm here to expose all the crimes of your cult, in the hopes that some confused and fooled catholics might come to seek out the truth, escape the lies and deceptions of their cult, truly read the Word and find salvation through the only Savior Jesus Christ and eventually save their souls from eternal destruction. If you think you can find fault in that, than so be it. Glad you're not my Judge.   servant

      P.S. I receive no joy in trying to get through to stubborn and hard-headed people who prefer to close their eyes, ears and hearts to the truth of the Almighty God and His Word, believe me.

    • Marty says:

      Dan/Jim- I guess when jack chick died, you came on here! You haven't used the whore of Babylon phrase yet, that I know of. – marty

  24. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Dan

    Thank you for your reply. 

    You have exposed nothing. Other than that you deserted the faith of your fathers at a time when it was very fashionable to do so. And that you feel very, very sorry for yourself indeed. You blame all of your (imagined) problems on Roman Catholics. Yet you refuse to take responsibility for your own deeds. Spending your life making public, yet annonymous and therefore cowardly, attacks on Roman Catholics is counter productive.  Kindly reflect.

    Be careful who you worship.

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

    • Dan says:

      Do you always take responsibility for your own deeds that are in reality just the repetitive lies of ignorant disgusting catholic cowardly lying creeps. Get a life and have a comment worth responding to, and not have to repeat the same garbage you've spewed in the last 4 comments. God bless.

  25. Mark says:

    Regardless of what the Boston Globe says now or back then, there is no excuse for what happened in the Catholic church in Boston or anywhere else in the US or the world.  Trying to spin it like this is just trying to pass the blame on and it does not work.  It is a shame that has led many to fall away from the church since then.

    • Dan says:

      Rather than confess to their sins, they'd rather pass the blame for their sins, and that's why "the church" is not forgiven, and apparently unwilling to ever come clean. Sad part is I think they're under the impression that they've even fooled the Almighty.

  26. Theodore JORNA says:

    To those of you our seperated brethren; Who wish to condemn the Catholic Church the one and only true Church (universal Church)   Oh i'm not just any denomiation i'm Catholic! We're not a denomination, WE'RE THE COMMON DENOMIATOR … 

    .To all of you, those who belong to the 30,000 man made different denominations, who all claim to to be the true church. Could you answer me this one question, "Who are your founders?"  

    The pharisees wanted to stone the woman who was guilty of adultery, "so let you who is without sin cast the first stone". The Catholic Church (universal church) was instituted by Christ read Matt16:13-20. There is only one Church there is only one head (Peter) and his sucessor Pope Francis. Bishop Sheen once said, "there are 1.2 billion sinners in the Catholic Church plus the Holy Spirit. Those who have fallen away from the Church are ussually the once who have much to confess. If your family has a sex offender, does that make all your family sex offenders? What about the country that sex offenders live in, does that make all people that live in that country sex offenders?.. Me thinks you have an axe to grind, like the Pharisees of old, but Christ could look through them and He condemned their hypocrisy. Matt: 23:13-27 . As for me,  when i came back to the Catholic Church i had much to confess. I'm glad i did, because i know that Christ died for us poor sinners and He walks amongst us poor sinners, and dines with us poor sinners. If you say you have no sin, you deceive yourself and make God out to be a lair.  The Catholic Church has been persecuted for 2,000 years, the good news is, it will still be there at the end of time; "why? " Because the gates of hell will not prevail".Matt 16:17,18…  Be careful whom you condemn !!!          Theo.

    • Dan says:

      Wow! Theo, what a moving speech. Let's see if someone can top that:

      "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it."  Matthew 7:13

      Gee! We're so sorry Theo, but Jesus had a better speech. Better luck next time. You want to know how you might be able to enter through that small gate? Get yourself clear of your phony deceiving cult of lies and liars. Only God can condemn and judge your heathen false church. Oh! That's right! He already has. Read Revelations chapter 17 and 18 if you don't believe me. Quit defending a lost cause. Read God's Word and educate yourself. Your church's claims won't get you to heaven. There's no way they'll stand the test of fire.  servant

    • Dan says:

      One last thing, "The gates of Hell will not prevail." They will not have to, because they will be wide open to gladly welcome "the Church".

  27. Dan says:

    And by the way, if your church has been persecuted for 1700 years, it's because it's been evil and wicked for that long. From what I've seen they do more persecuting than they are persecuted. When your cult is plagued with greedy, child molesting, lying creeps, well then they deserve all the persecuting they should get. I think we should burn them at the stake or boil them in hot oil, as they did to others that didn't buy into their false cult. I wonder how many so-called martyrs of "the Church" really only got what was coming to them for the crimes they committed. One has to wonder?

  28. Dan says:

    By the way, what is a "COMMON DENOMIATOR"? Is that like the TERMIATOR? Guess so? Arnold Schwarzenegger, another fine example of a pure and humble catholic. LOL Why does everyone in this forum think I hate catholics, when instead I think you're all a big joke?

  29. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Dan

    Thank you for your reply. 

    Again. Your tirades are simply poorly disguised public (and annonymous, therefore cowardly) attackes on Roman Catholics. You have exposed NOTHING. But you have taken advantage of a great tragedy. What good have you done? Kindly reflect.

    Be careful who you worship.

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

    • Dan says:

      I asked you to give me a comment worth responding to, and yet you repeated now the same thing for the sixth time? What is the "great tragedy" I've "taken advantage of"? Cardinal Law lived a pretty full life dying at the age of 86. He most likely lived a much better life than the lives of the sexually abused victims of the slew of pedophile priests he protected. Maybe your cult can declare him a Saint to catholic child molesters. Get a life, Dick!

  30. Publion says:

    I’ll go down the list of ‘Dan’s comments as they appear on the site.

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1159PM:

    Here we see about as close to an encapsulation of ‘Dan’s basic operating equation as we are going to get: since the Church has sinners in it, then – popcorn, please – it is “not God’s church”. Reinforced by the odd usage “That’s period!!” – as if multiple exclamation points can substitute for rational explanation and demonstration.

    If God and Jesus didn’t expect Christians to sin, then – to repeat a point I have made here on a recent prior thread – why did Jesus specifically give Peter the ‘power of the keys’, i.e. to bind and loose sins … ?

    ‘Dan’ – of course – doesn’t actually ‘sin’, although he has previously here allowed as how he has made the “occasional mistakes” (and perhaps continues to do so … ?). Or perhaps ‘Dan’ is also a sinner, but just not a “horrific” one … something like that.

    Bottom-line: ‘Dan’s self-serving shtick is essentially that whatever else he may be, he doesn’t commit “horrific” sins; and with that point out of the way, he can go on about the Church … and on and on.

    • Dan says:

      publiar, Who do you think you're fooling by taking what I said out of context in order to prove your point that all humans are sinners, so it's perfectly fine that your DISGUSTING CULT HARBORS many of the WORST. I'll put the important parts of my statement in caps for you, but I think you only want to see what suits your deceiving catholic agenda.

      The statement was: " Yes, 'human agglomeration[s]' of the WORLD will have its share of horrific SINNERS, but when a church claiming to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD sports SO-CALLED HOLY LEADERS COMMITTING SINS AGAINST INNOCENTS "MORE" DISGUSTING than the WORLD, one would have to question their HOLINESS to realize they are NOT GOD'S CHURCH. THAT'S PERIOD!!

      So spit the popcorn you've stuffed your gluttonous face with out of your mouth, and maybe you'll be able to read the full sentence and not pick little pieces that help to lend credence to your ignorance and false lying assessments. THAT'S PERIOD!!

      You can make your false claims that Jesus gave your perverted leaders the power to "bind or loose sins", but that would be provided "the Church" truly was God's One True Church. That has already been proven false by your cult's own actions and unrepentant sin, and the All-Pure and Holy Father would never give the power to "bind and loose sins" to horrific pedophiles and pederasts and their bishop excusers. Please, try using some common sense.

       

    • Dan says:

      Mr. Know-It-All, I'll let you add the quotation marks I missed after the 1st "THAT'S PERIOD" and then you can really believe you truly do Know-It-All.

  31. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1223AM:

    Here he merely huffs and puffs that I do indeed “mock God” and “feel no fault in mocking His servants”. He’s – but of course – puts up no quotation of mine demonstrating that I “mock God”.

    Rather, his scam is to claim that in noting the many many holes in rationality of his assorted bits then I am “mocking” one of “His servants”. Anyone baptized – if not also the un-baptized of good will – can qualify as being one of “His servants”; ‘Dan’ certainly enjoys no special status (nor gets a special pass) on that point.

    But it is precisely that “special status” that is a crucial element in the foundation of ‘Dan’s whole whacko, self-serving agenda and shtick.

    And his comment here trails off with the usual epithetical riffing, for lack of anything better.

  32. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1241AM:

    ‘Dan’ neglects to mention that he has pretty much left all churches, and not just the Catholic Church. They are all “man-made” as he has asserted on previous threads – doncha see? – which leaves just – had you been waittttingggggggggg forrrrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – the church of ‘Dan’, the divinely-favored and semi-sinless ‘Dan’ presiding and attending.

  33. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 723PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ has accurately noted my point that since Jesus didn’t have the internet, then ‘Dan’ isn’t actually living “as Jesus did”. I stand by that point: the way ‘Dan’ formulated his original claim, then my point follows logically from it.

    ‘Dan’s response is – had you been waitttingggggggg forrrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – to toss up a chaff of epithetical huffing and puffing.

    And then a marvelous bit of sly silliness: ‘Dan’ doesn’t “own a computer or a cellphone”, doncha see?

    Well, he uses a computer, clearly; otherwise he wouldn’t be able to toss his stuff up on this site. So my point remains standing. Jesus didn’t use a computer, whether His own or somebody else’s that He borrowed.

  34. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 723PM:

    It may seem a trite point, but then it flowed from ‘Dan’s rather trite toss-up about living “as Jesus did”, which surely required and still requires further explication if it is to make any worthwhile sense at all.

    But ‘Dan’ isn’t into the worthwhile-sense thing; he’s a plop-tosser and a poseur and that’s about it.

    As to whether ‘Dan’ will have access to a computer in the future … who knows? But I imagine he’ll be keeping that access for quite a while; without it he’d have nothing to do but go out and accost people in person.

    Meanwhile, he and his “prophecy”-spouting female friend can go on and on.

    • Theodore JORNA says:

      Hi Dan! Guess i hit a nerve with you. Sad to say this but i think you have hatred in your heart! Was it Paul (Saul) whom was thrown of his horse for persecuting the early Catholic Church? What did Christ say to Saul! "Saul why are you persecuting Me"  Why did Christ say "Me"? Instead of my Disciples. Maybe you can tell me!  Could it be that Christ was referring to His Body the Church. Christ has only one Body and there is only one Head.., not 30000 !!  But you already know that don't you? Judas thought that Christ was preaching the wrong gospel, and ended up betraying Him, and the rest is history. By the way i did say the Chuch has been persecuted for over 2000 years not 1700 years. But you're not big on history are you? My advise to you my friend, is to read the Fathers of the Church, that's if you have the courage… I'll give you a start… Peter was the first head of the Church, then came Linus and so forth… till our present day Pope Francis. 

       Cheers, Theodore……….

       

    • Dan says:

      Hey Teddy (or do you prefer "the Beaver"), if you're answering to me, why did you reply to publiar? You caught me. I have hatred in my heart (poohoo!). I hate false religions brainwashing the masses. I hate churches claiming to be Christian, when they are far from Christ-like. Christ never started your church of heathens. How could his church be enormously rich and greedy, full of idolatry, sexually immoral, especially with children (sick), and plagued with compulsive liars. How is it that they can indoctrinate millions, who refuse to read the Bible to understand His truth.

      This is going to be painful for you to understand, but try. Where does it say in the Bible that Paul "was thrown off his horse for persecuting the early Catholic Church?" It doesn't say that because the Catholic Church isn't in the Bible. Neither are any of your popes, because pope is not in the Bible either. Nor is the Rosary. Nor Mary sinless. Nor assumed. Nor immaculate. Nor Mary to be bowed or prayed to in repetition (Matt. 6:7). Do you like to babble like pagans do? Why can't you brainwashed catholics understand that your church is not following Christ and you are not Christians? I do not hate catholics. I hate your false church and it's lying hierarchy.

       

    • Dan says:

      Apparently you have a problem with history, Theodore. I said 1700 years because Emperor Constantine started your Roman Catholic fraud of a church. That's when all the temples of your cult began, and Rome became the center and birthplace of your cult. Why do you think that St. Peters Basilica is crowned with Roman type statues atop their pagan temple. This is where all the greed and idolatry of your cult got started.

      I have no interest in reading about the "Fathers of the Church", because I'm not into reading fiction and fairy tales. I'll leave that to the fairies. Speaking of fairies, publiar would probably be interested, since he's always mentioning being down the rabbit hole with the Mad Hatter and all his other Cartoon Time fastasies. Wasn't "Linus" also a cartoon figment of the cult's imagination? And pope francis, talk about a wolf in sheeps clothing, phony hypocrite extroadinaire. You can't see that your leaders act and even dress as bad or worse than the Pharisees of Christ's day? What does it take for catholics to remove the blinders? Try starting by reading the Bible, rather than your cults propaganda.  servant of the Lord

  35. Dan says:

    I have no comment once again to your repetitive ignorance and stupidity, but my " 'prophecy'-spouting female friend" would like to tell you that you can "Kiss Her Grits", to which I would like to say ditto, but not the southern version of the phrase.   fellow "prophets" of the Almighty

  36. Dan says:

    You don't think that your sarcastic, " 'prophecy'-spouting female friend", is mockery against someone who has the spiritual gift of prophecy that was given to her by the Almighty, and hence would be considered mocking of His Holy Spirit, blasphemer? So sad that you are so deep into your sinful lying life, that you have no conscience and yet think you know so much.

  37. Publion says:

    Moving right along to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1159PM:

    Trying to keep his oh-so-necessary-for-his-purposes cartoon going, ‘Dan’ merely quotes – without refuting – my point that there are sinners in any “human agglomeration”; that statement of mine reflects the reality of sin as affecting all human beings (except ‘Dan’, apparently, who – some readers might recall – doesn’t  do much in the sin line, although he does admit to the “occasional mistake”).

    And – yet again – if Jesus didn’t expect even His own followers to be liable to sin, then why did He give Peter the ‘power of the keys’, i.e. to “bind and loose” sins … ? Regular readers might notice that ‘Dan’ has never tried to deal with this rather glaring Scriptural point.

    • Dan says:

      Yes, I dealt with this previously, and again yesterday and I'll say it once again. Jesus gave NO permission to child abusing pedophiles and pederasts (priests) who have destroyed many innocent childrens lives and their bishop excusers and deniers, the power to forgive sins. That's Period!!

      Catholic priests and bishops were parading around wearing the robes, some with crowns, of great kings and Pharisees, while in secret sexually abusing, raping and sodomizing little boys. Now use some common sense. Do you think these would be the disgusting nasty creeps that God would choose to have the power to forgive others? If your answer is yes, than your ignorance is far worse than one could have imagined.  servant of the Holy Lord

  38. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1159PM:

    The Church’s “holiness” comes not from any perfection in performance but rather from the Church’s being instituted and given her mission by Christ.

    Meanwhile, the delusional ‘Dan’-verse scam is this: once you declare that you are ‘saved’, then you are no longer a sinner (although – but of course – you might make the “occasional mistakes”). Thus, whatever else he might be, ‘Dan’s delusion allows him to take the high-ground by virtue of his not being a sinner.

    And ‘Dan’ further tries to insulate his cartoon by also going for the idea that while some Christians may indeed sin, yet the sex-abuse sins (however many genuine such individuals there might be in that category) of her clergy are – oh so conveniently for ‘Dan’ – utterly beyond the pale of forgiveness. And ‘Dan’ knows this because his bathroom mirror tells him so. Thus, on the basis of his grossly self-serving presumptions, he can amuse himself by raving on and on.

    • Dan says:

      Let's be clear, "sex-abuse sins … of her clergy" were not just "sex-abuse sins", they were repeated sexual encounters of sodomy, rape and child abuse performed by so-called holy men against innocent underaged victims. YES, they would be utterly unforgiveable crimes against God's precious little ones. That's Period!!!

  39. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1223AM:

    Yet again, he tries to avoid my oft-demonstrated point: a) I don’t mock God, although I do take on ‘Dan’s stuff and b) ‘Dan’ is in no way beyond the most generic and universal sense demonstrated to be a “servant” of God; his eructations are far more attributable to his own scam (i.e. hiding his whackery behind a masquerade of direct divine authority) than to any speshull role and office as God’s chosen mouthpiece.

    “Appalling!”, he brays, getting back to the posturing that is far more his natural stance.

  40. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1241AM:

    Readers may recall that ‘Dan’ not only left the Catholic Church; he left all “man-made religion”; thus although for his purposes on this site he goes on about the Church and Catholicism, ‘Dan’ is really not a member of any Christ-based religious polity. Instead, he is his own ‘church’, guided by that bathroom mirror and the entities he sees in it.

  41. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 201PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ bleats that he doth “spend very little time feeling sorry for [him]self”.

    Presuming that the reader has not thus choked on the popcorn that should always accompany any reading of ‘Dan’-stuff, I would point out that what ‘Dan’ has really done is merely to transmute his self-pity into self-justification, i.e. that his numerous legal and psychiatric misadventures were all the result of nothing but “lies” and more “lies” perpetrated by Catholics who have sought to “falsely accuse and slander” the poor ‘prophetic’ thing.

    And actually he is a creature of “much joy”. Readers equipped with a divining rod are welcome to go over any selection of ‘Dan’s material to find such “much joy”. The only pleasure ‘Dan’ derives is from trying to spin his whackery as irrefutable Divine Truth, as guided by his bathroom mirror séances.

  42. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 201PM:

    But – with an impressive slyness – ‘Dan’ then tries to slather some cover over the overtly disturbing nature of his performances here by allowing as how he quite understandably doth “have a normal human reaction to persecution”.

    Thus that doubts as to his general wellness in the mental department are – had you been waitttinggg forrrr ittttt? – merely the same type of “persecution” visited upon … oh, say the Apostles, for instance.

    The Apostles were persecuted; ‘Dan’ is persecuted’; therefore ‘Dan’ is one with the Apostles and truly to be numbered among “True Christians” (the latter group being a pretty small number indeed, in his calculations). That sort of thing.

    Did we know that ‘Dan’ is, by the by, a prodigy from San Francisco? Why is that not surprising?

    As so often, he directs one and all to start “reading the Bible”. It’s a sly scam: the Bible doesn’t talk back, doubt or dispute anything that ‘Dan’ might – for whatever purposes – ‘discover’ in it. Actual religious groups tend very much to do the opposite, which is why ‘Dan’ found it far more convenient to dispense with real-life religion and create his own ‘divine’ fan club.

    ‘Dan’ has created not a doll-house for himself, but rather a doll-church, where he can move everything around to his own amusement, pleasure and satisfaction.

  43. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 247PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ bleats that he has a “fact check” for commenter ‘Comerford’:  ‘Dan’ – doncha know? – is not here to “tell [his] story or defend [him]self”.

    I would disagree. ‘Dan’ is involved in an extended, pervasive and deep scam (or delusional plan, if you prefer) to precisely evade his own issues and whackeries by claiming a divine mantle for focusing on something other than his own issues and whackeries.

    And I again point out that all of his bits here could be as easily applied if this site were an overtly Protestant (of any type) website since Protestantism too is in his fever-visions comprised of many variants of “man-made religion”; but he’s especially got this thing for Catholicism so this site gets his attention.

    It gives him something to do. Otherwise he runs the risk of looking in that bathroom mirror and seeing – the horror! – himself.

  44. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 427AM:

    Here, with his Pope-hat on (and no doubt admiring himself thus attired in his bathroom mirror) ‘Dan’ doth declare, proclaim and assert that “’the church’ is not forgiven”. Readers may judge the validity and reliability of that pronunciamento as they may.

    I would say that it’s highly dubious that ‘Dan’ has “fooled the Almighty”. But rather possible and even probable that ‘Dan’ has “fooled” himself. But – again – it’s either fool himself or face himself … and we know what option ‘Dan’ has chosen in that regard.

  45. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 336AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will toss up a pericope from his handy 3×5 file.

    Does ‘Dan’ presume that he has indeed ‘found’ that “narrow … way that leads to life”? It would appear so, which would be a necessary straw in the birds-nest ‘theology’ that ‘Dan’ has constructed for his own self-serving purposes.

    Yes, ‘Dan’, Jesus has a great “speech” here. Recite it into your bathroom mirror more often.

  46. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 336AM:

    But wait! There’s more.

    ‘Dan’ then trumpets that “only God can condemn and judge” – waitttttt forrrrrrr itttttttttttttttttttttt! – “your heathen false church”. Ummmmmm –  it sounds like ‘Dan’ just did it on his own.

    But – doncha see? – it’s not ‘Dan’ doing the judging and condemning here. Noooooooo – it’s God Himself, speaking through ‘Dan’. But I would say that – tempting as the image is when applied to ‘Dan’ – God doesn’t use people like ventroliquists’ dummies.

    ‘Dan’s dummy bits are all his own.

    • Dan says:

      I have to disagree. Apparently God is using you as a ventriloquists' dummy. He's showing how dumb it is for a catholic dummy to mock Him and His servants. And we'll have to call the grammar police, because the dummy doesn't know how to spell ventriloquist. Oh! That's right! The dummy is the grammar police, so maybe he's just another one of those catholic pigs, dumb as rocks. You and your church are a lying accusing joke, publiar.

  47. Dan says:

    You catholics listen to publiar attack and throw jabs at me and my mental state, call me an anti-catholic bigot and I'm a catholic hater. Your biased defense of everything catholic and even catholic accusers and liars, would make you all haters and anti-Christian bigots. You apparently have no problem with that now, do you? Goes both ways, hypocrites!

  48. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Dan

    Thank you for your reply. 

    Yet again. You have exposed NOTHING. You have merely used this tragedy as an aexcuse to publicly and annonymously (and therefore cowardly) attack Roman Catholics. You have also misued this tragedy to complain about your personal problems with the Police and the Roman Catholic Church. You are acting like a spolied brat. Kindly reflect. 

    Be careful who you worship.

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

  49. Dan says:

    Dick, This is now the 7th time you've given the same programmed response. Are you a parrot or a computer generated response. And now I'm a "spolied brat". Satans' accusers and liars can sure throw the accusations out there, even when they make no sense. Maybe if you're going to slander a person, you might want to make sure you spell the lie properly. And may I end as you do with a phony and insincere, "God bless".

    • Richard W Comerford says:

      Mr. Dan

      Thank you for your reply. 

      Name one thing that you have exposed on this blog. One. OTH you have regularly and annonymously (and cowardly) expressed your bigotry against Roman Catholics. BTW a cowardly, annonymous bigot cannot be slandered. Kindly reflect. 

      Be careful who you worship.

      God bless​

      Richard W Comerford

    • Dan says:

      I've exposed the fraud and lies of your cult, the disgusting sexually immoral sins against little boys and just about every unbiblical lie in the catechism of your church. All I've heard from you is, "You're a coward. You're a coward, You're a coward. You're a coward, and a bigot, and a bigot, and a bigot, and a bigot." If I wanted to hear a parrot, I could Youtube bird calls. Fly away, Dodo bird. Sorry. Forgot, Dodos can't fly.  God bless.

  50. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 306PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ suddenly admits what he has recently denied here: he does indeed “have hatred in [his] heart”. Brushing that whopper of an admission away with a mere “(poohoo!)”, he then proceeds to enunciate what are pretty much the actual dimensions of his shtick: he doth “hate all false religions” – which, of course, includes all of them (at least of the Christian variety). So – and most conveniently for him – it’s really just ‘Dan’s way or the hell-way. Neato.

    Naturally, the only way you can truly and genuinely and accurately “read the Bible” is if you turn out to agree with ‘Dan’s take on the Bible bits.

  51. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 306PM:

    Thus doth he then condescend to the Bible-illiterates who don’t buy the ‘Dan’-verse take on Scripture: “the Catholic Church isn’t in the Bible” … true enough.

    But if “the Catholic Church isn’t in the Bible” that pretty much takes the wind out of ‘Dan’s frequent claims that this and that Old and New Testament (especially Revelation) pericope actually refers to the Catholic Church.

    Then again, to what “church” was Jesus referring when He gave Peter the Great Commission … ?

    Ditto the word “pope” doesn’t appear in the Bible, but what then would one call Peter in the schema that Jesus outlined when he gave Peter the Great Commission … ?

    And so on. And all of his following points have been addressed in recent comments here.

    • Dan says:

      Must you always act so dumb. The "catholic church" is not named in the Bible. The pagan catholic false church is described in detail, without the name, in so many places I've referred to in the Bible, especially Rev. chapter 17 and 18. Do I have to explain everything like I'm talking to a 1st grader, or do you think your little word games are going to fool someone?

  52. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 333PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will give a history lesson, and it raises some interesting questions.

    He now claims that it was Emperor Constantine who “started you Roman Catholic fraud of a church”, and “that’s when …” and so forth.

    First, Constantine’s inspiration to place a form of the Christian cross on the shields of his troops at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge took place in 312AD. But while Constantine slowly moved the Roman state toward Christianity, it was not until Emperor Theodosius late in that century that Christianity was made the official religion of the Empire.

    But second, what are we to make, then, of the prior centuries of Christianity and – not to put too fine a point on it – popes and bishops, in light of ‘Dan’s claim here that it was Constantine’s reign “that started your Roman Catholic fraud of a church” … ? Apparently all the popes prior to Pope Miltiades (thus from Peter and Linus up through Pope Eusebius) were … “True Christians”, as ‘Dan’ likes to say. And all the bishops and Patriarchs of those centuries as well.

  53. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 333PM:

    Passing over for the moment the stupendous amount of Christian and Catholic history that ‘Dan’ simply accepts in his statement, what precisely was it that Constantine did that – in the ‘Dan’-verse vision of things – shifted Christianity from “True” to “false” … ?

    And – seriously – are to accept with a straight face and no-popcorn that there were no church buildings before the reign of Constantine? The church building in Dura-Europos? The Aqaba church in Jordan? The church building in Megiddo? The Cathedral of St. Domnius in what is now Split? The Church of the Cenacle in Jerusalem? The church of Saints Cosmas and Damian in Rome? The Abu Mina Basilica in Alexandria?  And all the Bishops and Patriarchs and presbyter/priests that went with them?

    And historically, as Constantine allowed the open practice of Christianity, the result was simply that Christian worship could now express itself openly and publicly.

    • Dan says:

      I never said there wasn't any pagan temples, and the catholic cult just added their own pagan temples and happen to make them more elaborate and bigger in their greed. Once more 'Dan' will lead you to the Biblical account of what God thinks of your stupid temples:

      "So it was until the days of David, who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for him. Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says, 'Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things?' You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As the fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?" Acts 7:45-51

      So you stiff-necked people, keep buying properties and building your worthless churches, and keep persecuting the prophets sent to warn you to stop your ignorance and nonsense, and keep denying that your nothing but a catholic mocking fool.  servant

  54. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 333PM:

    Thus we see the folly (if not duplicity) of ‘Dan’s bleat that he hath “no interest in reading about the ‘Fathers of the Church’”: his ignorance of early Christian history merely leads to such howlers as his Constantine bit here.

    And then – and it’s always a sign with ‘Dan’ and other Abuseniks that they’re on the ropes – ‘Dan’ suddenly switches gears and goes on a riff about “fairies” (and this guy says he’s from San Francisco – go figure). And seeks further to evade his historical whackeries by merely bringing up “Linus” as a Peanuts cartoon character. And on and on.

    • Dan says:

      Wow, what a comeback. Do all you rednecks think that there's nothing but fairies in S.F.? Your little S.F. shots are nothing but that, little and immature and childish. Grow up, peewee.

  55. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 715PM and 722PM:

    What passes for “prophecy” between ‘Dan’ and his friend is what it is and readers can judge for themselves if they consider the stuff to be “prophecy”.

    Nor is it “mockery” since we don’t really know if this “friend” actually “has the spiritual gift of prophecy” or is merely another cracked case having a lot in common with nothing more than ‘Dan’ and his bathroom mirror kazoo band.

  56. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 149PM:

    If ‘Dan’ is braying and trumpeting here that Jesus gave no Great Commission or power of the keys to Peter, then he’s got a lot of Biblical ‘splainin’ to do indeed.

    If he isn’t saying that, then he going to have to explain what just what he is saying or trying to claim.

    • Dan says:

      Funny how you can talk like a baby ('splainin', then he going to have) and have no problem with it, but I shorten because to cause and you're all over me. Hypocrisy at its best.

  57. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 201PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ dons the Wig of Authoritative Clarity to declare that “sex-abuse sins” were “not just sex-abuse sins” … and anyone who can suss out the logic or rationality in that bit is welcome to share it here. Essentially and logically, ‘Dan’ is here claiming that ‘A is not-A’; which, I would say, is as neat an example of ‘Dan’s version of logic as one is likely to find.

    What he’s really up to is to try and stampede the reader: “sex abuse sins” is a perfectly accurate general description but accuracy and rationality are neither ‘Dan’s preferred mode of operation nor are they useful for creating the type of emotional dust-cloud that is very much ‘Dan’s preferred mode of operation.

    And, for that matter, we have seen very very few demonstrated and proven cases that conform to ‘Dan’s oh-so-sly visualization of “repeated sexual encounters of sodomy …” and so on. This is merely the Tied-To-The –Railroad-Tracks scare vision that describes – at the very most – only a very few of the cases that we have seen over the decades.

    • Dan says:

      You would prefer the more general term, "sex-abuse sins", because it suits your agenda, to minimize and deny the disgusting sins of the church. They are "NOT just sex-abuse sins", they are far more disgusting and horrific because they are crimes of sodomy, rape and child molestation against innocent children, the most vulnerable of society, which makes the creeps of your cult DESPICABLE. There, is that better for you?  servant of the LORD

  58. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 201PM:

    But this deceptive bit of manipulation then paves the way for the concluding assertion – as if he were God – that such scenarios are “utterly unforgiveable” and so on.

    It won’t work. What a) furthers ‘Dan’s highly strategized scare-visions and what b) God finds “utterly unforgiveable” are not at all the same thing. Unless one were to share that bathroom mirror with ‘Dan’.

  59. Dan says:

    They are "utterly unforgiveable" sins of child abuse according to God and also according to any 'decent' human being, something creeps like yourself fail to understand.  servant

  60. Theodore JORNA says:

       Uhmmm! Seems to me you beleive Peter our first Pope was also a heretic. You certaintly are confused Dan!! 

    But I forgive those who persecute me..  Why?  Because that is what Christ taught me to do, through His Church the Holy Catholic Church… So Dan i forgive you, and i'll pray for you..

    God Bless. 

    Theo……….

     

  61. Dan says:

    Boy, are you confused, Theodore. I do not believe Peter was a heretic. What the catholic church makes of Peter (pope) and Mary (goddess) is heretical. There's the difference. It's the catholic lies that will never be accepted as Biblical Truth, only to brainwashed idolators. Your church preaches a false unbiblical gospel, the gospel and its characters are not to blame.

    • Dan says:

      This is a prophecy from the Lord Almighty, to any and all catholics who may have doubt about how the Lord feels about those who bring harm to one of His innocent little ones. Don't allow the Son of Satan to lie and convince you that these are not the Words of the Lord. He's a deceiving lying creep, who prefers that you never come to know Gods' truth.

      "Anyone who molests or hurts one of my little children, will be convicted by Me on Judgment Day. You can bet on it, and they will be prosecuted and held accountable for the evilness of their acts, for what they did to Me. Anybody who lays a finger on one of My children, without any reason, will be condemned and punished for what they did to Me. These are My precious, innocent little children, whom I will never ever stop protecting, from the people who keep harming them, for what they did to Me. I know and see how they claim to follow and love Me, then go and do the most horrible acts of crimes a human can do to one of My children. If you think I can forgive you for what you have done, you had better think twice, for what you did to Me."

      Now catholics, you can listen to the lies of Satans' demons try to claim that this is not from the Lord, or you can wake from your stupor, read the Bible and find the One True God. Go ahead and call me any mean nasty names you wish, but you will know the truth when you stand before God. You may not have much time left to make this life changing decision.

    • Dan says:

      So catholics, whenever someone claims he has a word of prophecy from the Lord, it must be tested against Gods' Word. So once more we go to Matthew 18:1-10 to find Jesus calling a child to himself, and saying we must become like one of these little ones or we will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Still speaking with the child right there in front of him, he says;

      "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and be drowned in the depth of the sea."  Maytthew 18:5,6

      Now the lyin' publiar wants to claim that Jesus was speaking to adults that must become like children. Using his stupid logic, if God says harming one of His chosen is worthy of a horrible swift death, just think the punishment one would deserve for sodomizing or raping one of His innocent little children? And he thinks he can get away with mocking Gods' servants or prophets. Don't let this catholic deceiver blind and fool your soul. He is evil personified and wishes to do the works of his father, the devil, lie, accuse and deceive.    servant

  62. Publion says:

    I’ll go down the comments as they appear on the site, thus not chronologically.

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1115AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ tries to evade a point by deploying his old I’m Not/You Are bit: he tries to say that it is not he, but rather that “God is using [me] as a ventriloquist’s dummy”.

    How exactly would that work?

    Easy-peezy for ‘Dan’s cartoon world: I am demonstrating for God “how dumb it is for a catholic dummy to mock Him (i.e. God) and His servants (i.e. ‘Dan’). Ovvvvvvvv coursssssssssssssse.

  63. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1006AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ doth bethump “you catholics” for ‘listening’ “to publiar attack and throw jabs at me and my mental state”.

    ‘Dan’s “mental state” – given the material ‘Dan’ has himself provided here – is clearly relevant to his entire position here. If those “catholics” who called the police and caused ‘Dan’s multiple misadventures with the law and psychiatry (and cost him somewhere around two thousand dollars in fines or court costs or some such, as he has recently claimed on this site) were accurately describing his activities and statements, then there arises the hardly avoidable picture of a somewhat unbalanced person harassing people on the basis of his insistence that he is a messenger of God and so on and so forth.

    And anyone familiar with Catholic belief and teaching and with Scripture and Scriptural theology would thus have another reason – on top of the content of ‘Dan’s Bible-quoting  eructations – to harbor grave reservations about his competence as a guide to either Scripture or Catholicism or even his own mental status.

    • Dan says:

      And the habitual liar adds to the accusations as to my mental state, because compulsive evil catholics like himself lied to have me thrown in jail. You're just a flat out jackass lying accuser. How do you catholics defend and kiss the ass of a liar. Is there no honesty in your cult? servant

  64. Publion says:

    I’ll go down the list of ‘Dan’s most recent as they appear on the site, not in chronological order. Nor will I deal with all of them, since some of them are merely attempts at come-back while avoiding the points I had raised.

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1243AM:

    Here we get a nice statement of what ‘Dan’ happily imagines himself to be doing on the site. He is “exposing the fraud and lies of your cult”, ditto “the disgusting sexually immoral sins” and ditto “just about every unbiblical lie in the catechism of your church”. Readers may consider if this is what ‘Dan’ has actually done here.

    He then bleats that all he has “heard from” me is “You’re a coward” and so forth. That is nothing I have ever said about ‘Dan’ on this site and if he thinks he has an accurate quotation of mine to the contrary then he’d best put it up with an accurate date/time and thread reference.

    But that leads to a slyly distracting riff on birds and You-Tube and so on. And on that note he quickly gets himself off the stage.

  65. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1252AM:

    I had said that the term “catholic church” does not appear in the Bible.

    To which ‘Dan’ replies that “The pagan catholic church is described in detail, without the name …”.

    In other words, we are to take ‘Dan’s fever-vision insistence that lots of stuff in the Bible backs up his anti-Church ranting … it’s just that the Bible doesn’t say it’s the Church that is the subject.

    Then a quick plopping-on of the Wig of Bethumped Integrity: must the poor virtuous and divinely-informed thing “have to explain everything like [he’s] talking to a first grader … ?”.

    • Dan says:

      Very good observation. Yes, many horrific descriptions in the Bible of a false church line up and describe in fine detail the catholic cult. Dick needs to know that also, if he wasn't so busy repeating himself.

  66. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1252AM:

    What he ever so slyly tries to pull off here is this: the fact that he has utterly nothing but his own fever-visions and frothy assertions to demonstrate definitively the accuracy of his presumption (i.e. that whatever he says describes the Church indeed describes the Church) is actually just an indication that he’s dealing with first-graders who, apparently, are too dumb to see how true his claims and assertions really are.

    First-graders might have comprehension problems with concepts, of course. But the problem ‘Dan’ has is, rather, a demonstration or proof problem, i.e. his stuff is nothing more than a bunch of his own fever-visions that he cannot demonstrate to be reliably accurate. It’s not his claims and presumptions that are the core problem with his stuff; it’s that he has utterly no demonstrable proof for his claims and presumptions.

  67. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:

    Here he tries to dig himself out of the hole he dug for himself with his bit about the Church having started with Constantine’s reign. The buildings I mentioned all pre-dated Constantine and were in use as Catholic churches before his reign began.

    Quickly trying to change the subject, ‘Dan’ then tosses up another pericope … from the Old Testament (or, if you prefer, Hebrew Scriptures). But how does ‘Dan’ square this with Jesus in the Gospels telling Peter that it is upon Peter that He will “build my church”? (Catholic answer: it was not until the arrival of Jesus on earth that God would be understood with sufficient accuracy – demonstrated through the life, death, and Resurrection of Christ – such that places of worship might be built in which the genuine worship of God would be conducted.)

    ‘Dan’ then tries to bring his performance home here by slyly trying to apply to Catholics a divine characterization (“stiff-necked people”) from the Old Testament that was actually applied not to Catholics but to an Old Testament people.

    And on that basis, we get his concluding riff as he heads for the wings.

    • Dan says:

      What is wrong with you catholics? 'Church' as it is defined in the Word is NOT a place of worship. The catholic church will never fulfill the definition of Christs' church. His church would not be plagued with pompous greedy men dressed like Pharisees, statue worshipping idolators, sexually immoral child molesters, cowards and compulsive liars. These terms prove that your cult is a complete failure and not anywhere near the One True Church of the Almighty. That's period!! So you can criticize and call me names and that will change nothing!

  68. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1025PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ tries to claim that my use of “the more general term, ‘sex abuse sins’” is just “an excuse to minimize”. That would slyly require readers to presume that ‘Dan’s characterizations are a) accurate and are b) not merely an effort to maximize accusations that have rarely been demonstrably proven.

    His entire manipulative presentation in this comment of his requires the presumption that the unproven and undemonstrated maximized fever-visions he so urgently prefers (and needs) are accurate.

    As always, for ‘Dan’s stuff to appear to be on the level, you have to hold your head at a precariously steep angle.

    • Dan says:

      Many "accusations" didn't need to be "demonstrably proven". The pedophile and pederast priests of your cult admitted to their guilt, others got off on SOLs, some died as old untried perverts and others were whisked away to the Vatican for protection. Why must you continue to minimize and excuse their guilt? All this proves is that the cult shows no remorse and is unrepentant, and therefore unforgiven. Catholics run from these lies and excuses.

  69. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1029PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will simply try to palm off on readers as being the mind and will of God what are actually only ‘Dan’s self-serving presumption, i.e. that all sins of “child abuse” are “utterly unforgivable” by God. He has never provided any demonstration of the validity of this (key) presumptive assertion of his (and we have dealt with this point several times at length on prior threads).

    He then tries – through conceptual incompetence or sly legerdemain – to make that mind-choking claim more palatable by then adding “and also according to any ‘decent human being’”.

    How God judges ultimately and how human beings judge provisionally are two very different things.

    And in giving Peter the ‘power of the keys’, Christ gave Peter the authority to ‘bind and loose’ sins … which simply complicates ‘Dan’s theological and Scriptural problems even more.

    • Dan says:

      Oh! I'm not a pompous creep! I can use words like 'legerdemain' to show what an intelligent snob I am. Talk about "mind-choking" garbage and ignorance. You're enough to make a person puke.

    • Dan says:

      You haven't got to it yet. Proof positive on Jan. 9th @ 12:58pm, I sent you the prophecy that proves that "child abuse" is "utterly unforgiveable" according to God. "Anyone who molests or hurts one of My little children, will be convicted by Me on Judgment Day." It's rough when you have insight on the "mind and will of God". Difficult to stay humble, but the Lord has His ways of keeping us humble. servant of the Lord, with the Mind and Will of the Almighty God

  70. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Dan

    Thank you for your reply. 

    Again. Name one thing, just one thing, that you have "exposed" about Roman Catholics. Fact is you hate Roman Catholics.  You are narrow minded and intolerant. You seem incapable of good will. Kindly reflect. 

    Be careful who you worship.

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

  71. Dan says:

    And any catholic should understand the last paragraph as God's honest truth, coming from a lying, deceiving, Bible misinterpreting, coward, idolator, excuser and denier of pedophiles and perverts of his One True Church. Catholics should all take the hypocrites word for it. Despicable!

  72. Theodore JORNA says:

    I thought the Jehovah witnesses were hostile to the Catholic Curch. But you take the cake, "what the heart is full of flows out of the mouth". I'll pray for you Dan! As Catholic Christians that is what we do. I don't know what sect or cult you belong to but all of your comments is laced with hatred, it is like a poison that will eventually destroy you. 

    God bless,

     Theodore………

     

  73. Dan says:

    I'm narrow "minded and intolerant"? If you think so, because I refuse to accept a false religion of hypocrites, have a problem with idolators who pray to false gods or goddesses, and can't stand compulsive habitual liars and slanderers, then quite possibly you're right. You don't know me. How dare you claim I'm "incapable of good will", slanderer? Who do you catholics think you are, worshipping false gods and demeaning anyone who questions your phony cult of perverts and creeps with character assassinations. You think you're special, LYING ACCUSING HYPOCRITES!

  74. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1036AM:

    We quickly pass over the now-ridiculous bit about the Church having ‘made’ “Mary a goddess”.

    The more interesting howler here is this: in regard to what, exactly, is Peter-as-Pope “heretical? You can’t simply ‘be’ heretical; heresy requires a negative relationship to a pre-existing corpus of doctrine. And what pre-existing corpus of doctrine is it on the basis of which ‘Dan’ doth intone the charge of heresy? (Short answer: it is heresy against the ‘doctrinal holdings’ of the church-of-‘Dan’-in-the-bathroom-mirror … for which bit of furnishing , clearly, ‘Dan’ requires a hefty dose of Windex.)

    And the comment trails off with ‘Dan’ (wearing his personal pope hat) fuming on and on.

    • Dan says:

      I'm stating that the majority of catholic teachings, along with it's unbiblical hierarchy and goddess worship is heresy against True Christianity, the teachings of Christ, the Apostles and Paul. The title of pope didn't even exist until Boniface in 606 A.D.. So "the Church" goes backwards to link itself to Christs' time by pulling names out of the Bible to title as popes, to fit their deceiving agenda, so they can make false claims that their pagan heathen cult began in the first century.

      I just read today, pope Francis' infallible word on the "Queen of Heaven" in his book, 'Happiness in This Life', page 142 – "Think about it, Our Lady is more important than the Apostles! She is much more important!" HERESY!! I say HERESY!! What books of the Bible did Mary write, catholics? Someone should have papa read Ephesians 2:19-21

      "… but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." Do you see any mention of Mary? NO! And maybe you can learn that the saints, members, apostles, prophets and especially Christ make up Gods' Spiritual Temple, not a man-made phony temple. Let me know when I'm through schooling you fools, and I'll take on the pope next.  servant of the Truth

    • Dan says:

      And don't try to kid yourself that "saints" refers to those charlatans that catholics name as saints, especially the ones that secretly hide the pedophiles and perverts of "the Church" (JP II).

  75. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1258PM:

    Here – and had you been waitttingggggggggg forrrrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttt? – ‘Dan’ has apparently decided that he isn’t going to prevail on the basis of his Biblical or theological chops so instead we get a whomped-up “prophecy from the Lord Almighty” that – by amazing coincidence – sounds just like ‘Dan’ trying to float an advertisement for his shoddy Scriptural and spiritual wares.

    Readers are advised not to reach for the popcorn while reading it since there is some danger of choking on the kernels while reading the thing, especially out loud.

    Now, Catholics, you can listen to ‘Dan’ doing his best (and a sad ‘best’ it is) imitation of God or you can – after reading it – engage in some thoughtful and prayerful munching on the popcorn.

    Oh, and stop calling ‘Dan’-as-‘Dan’ or ‘Dan’-as-God “mean, nasty names”. ‘Cuz God’ll getcha “and you may not have much time left”. Take it from the horse’s … mouth.

  76. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 245PM:

    And continuing with his riff, ‘Dan’ once again (and how many times have we been over this pericope before?) tries to twist the Matthean pericope to his own Catholic-bethumping purposes.

    As I have said a number of times before: a) in verses 1 through 4 the disciples had asked Jesus who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven / in response to which Jesus called over a near-by child (using a show-and-tell methodology and teacher will recognize) and said that in order to believe one must humble oneself like a little child.

    He then addresses Himself to His inquiring disciples and says that whoever causes a “believer” (i.e. little child) to not-believe in Jesus would better be drowned in the sea with a millstone tied around his neck.  The little child is both i) a living image of what Jesus says a believer must be and ii) a warning to the disciples not to lead believers astray.

  77. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 245PM:

    But the drowning-millstone image is merely an image tied to this-world. It says nothing about how God will treat any such sinner in the next-world. Jesus is trying to impress upon the disciples (some of whom were fisherman and were well-acquainted with the prospect of drowning out on the sea) the necessity of growing beyond concern for themselves and focusing on fostering the belief of believers.

    There is no way that one can conclude from this pericope what ‘Dan’s  faux-divine dog-and-pony show requires, i.e. that Jesus is giving a clear indication that there will be no forgiveness from God in the next-life. There is no way that any human can declare that this or that sin is ultimately unforgivable in God’s eyes. It is for this reason that the Church does not presume to definitively declare that any particular human being is actually in Hell.

    But ‘Dan’ agenda requires exactly some presumption like this in order to stay afloat itself.

    • Dan says:

      I have absolutely no problem with the meaning being that you must become like a little child in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, after all that is what it says. I'm saying that the child is still standing in front of Christ, when he declares the worldly punishment for harming one of his little ones and causing them to sin. If an adult rapes, sodomizes or molests an innocent child, you don't think it's possible that that will lead the innocent mind down a path of sin? Do you think that God will grant such a worldly punishment, for being such a creep, and then turn around and allow that same creep forgiveness. Now that is absolutely ludicrous, but I might accept that, knowing Gods' forgiveness, if I didn't have the prophetic word from God stating:

      "Anyone who molests or hurts one of My little children, will be convicted by Me on Judgment Day. You can bet on it, and they will be prosecuted and held accountable for the evilness of their acts, for what they did to Me." You actually believe I would make up such horrible judgments against others, just so I can prove my point? That also is ludicrous and sounds more like something that your lying self would attempt to do. Pretty odd that I wish no one the punishment of Hell, and that's why I'm explaining Biblical Truth to those who have been deceived. Catholics read and study Gods' Word to find His Truth, and be careful of those who want to twist the Word in order to suit their lies and deceptions. You'll never be disappointed.

  78. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 245PM:

    Thus ‘Dan’s concluding paragraph gives us nothing but his own still-ungrounded assertions.

    Thus that I ‘lie’ by claiming “that Jesus was speaking to adults that must become like children”. But in ‘Dan’s own pericope Jesus says to the (adult) disciples: “unless you turn and become like children you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven”.

    And if there is a “horrible swift death” it is – to repeat yet again – merely a physical death.

    And Jesus says specifically in verse 6 of ‘Dan’s chosen pericope: “whoever causes one of these little ones [i.e. adults who have become humble like children] to sin …”. But obviously anyone forcibly raped is not a sinner but a genuine victim; thus the only way that this pericope can be shoe-horned into ‘Dan’s usual agenda is to presume that by forcibly raping someone you force that person to sin – which is nonsense.

    This pericope cannot work the way ‘Dan’ wants it to work for his usual purposes. Not that such an abyssal problem has ever stopped ‘Dan’ before as he continues to forcibly squeeze and squash Scripture to his own purposes.

    • Dan says:

      The only "abyssal problem" I'm having is from the ignorance and stupidity of you and some of your catholic cronies.

  79. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Dan

    Thank you for your reply. 

    Yet. Again. You have failed to expose anything. You have merely, gleefully and thoughtlessly, repeated public attacks which have already been made upon Roman Catholics. And you have done so annonymously which is the height of cowardice. This is the act of an intolerant bigot. Time to stop feeling sorry for yoruself and grow up. 

    Be careful who you worship.

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

    • Dan says:

      Balk! Balk! Balk! Cluck! Cluck! Cluck! Balk!Balk!Balk!

      What do you mean, I'm "intolerant"? I've been tolerating your ignorance and stupidity just fine.

  80. Dan says:

    And once again, catholic liar, WHATEVER!! Are you sure you don't worship and pray to Cracker Jacks and Jiffy Pop, gluttonous pig? Maybe you can find a Rosary or Miraculous Medal in your Cracker Jacks box, peewee.

  81. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1030PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ – for lack of anything better – merely harrumphs that a comment of his I had discussed “was directed to Dick”. Again, it’s an open forum – which doesn’t often suit ‘Dan’s purposes, so he tries to head for the harrumphy high-ground here.

  82. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1038PM:

    Here he doth declare that my comment of the 10th at 519AM was a “very good observation”.

    In that comment I had pointed out that “In other words, we are to take ‘Dan’s fever-vision insistence that lots of stuff in the Bible backs up his anti-Church ranting … it’s just that the Bible doesn’t say it’s the Church that is the subject”.

    Apparently – presuming here that ‘Dan’ actually has understood both what he has read and what he has written – he sees utterly nothing problematic with the fact that his own “fever-vision insistence” is all that he has to back up his many claims and accusations and fulminations.

    This is the type of mind with which we are dealing.

  83. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1100PM:

    Here – once he has lubricated his entrance with the epithetical bleat about “what is wrong with you Catholics” – he makes the claim that “’Church’ as it is defined in the Word is not a place of worship” (scream-caps omitted).

    Prescinding from the relevance of his assertion to anything on the thread, one might note that “the Word” is a rather vague usage indeed.

    And after he can a) explain what he means by “the Word”, then b) where in “the Word” is the term “church” defined clearly and definitively?

    But rather than deal with those problems in his assertion, he simply riffs on with his own epithetical fulminations … as if they are somehow supposed to be convincing demonstrations of his assertion.

    His bathroom mirror crew apparently only gives ‘Dan’ self-serving approbation, but not good information.

  84. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1116PM:

    Here he gives us a masterfully vivid demonstration of how – to put it far too gently – his mind works: “Many ‘accusations’ didn’t need to be ‘demonstrably proven’”, doncha see?

    “Many” priests “admitted to their guilt”, doncha see? But a) how many is that “many”? Or is this just another self-serving ‘Dan’ toss-off?

    And b) we have seen here on this site several points, backed up by credible references, that address this problem of the deforming role of plea-bargaining in the contemporary criminal justice system. To which I would add the possibility that any astute defense counsel would realize the near-impossibility of a defendant succeeding on the merits in a time of Stampede.

    One priest – in one of the (now largely discredited) Philadelphia cases, some here might recall – even admitted that he took the plea-bargain simply because he didn’t ‘want to die in prison’. Not the most courageous route to take, but hardly beyond understanding (especially when we see how the Philadelphia abuse trials were a frakkery of genuine legal process) and the man was probably right in his assessment of the odds against getting a fair trial.

  85. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1116PM:

    And – to repeat yet again – the Statutes of Limitation are precisely in place in Western justice in order to prevent the willful bringing of accusations long after vital evidence might have dissolved in the mists of time.

    Which was and is why the Stampede and its torties worked so vigorously to get the SOLs abolished or suspended in abuse-cases: such a gambit – too often successful with legislatures – effectively removed the requirement of evidence in assessing abuse allegations and claims. (Although as I recently noted here, the recent New York State experience was that so few came forward over the course of an entire year that the torties were reduced to actually putting up ads in at least one major newspaper soliciting such allegations urgently because ‘time was running out’; and still only 189 or so came forward from a very large chunk of the New York City metro area.)

  86. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1116PM:

    Then ‘Dan’ tosses in the fact that “some died” – which is hardly surprising given the very ‘historical’ nature of the allegations (i.e. they claimed actions from decades before). But then we get ‘Dan’s sly and deceptive and, frankly, deceitful characterizations of the deceased as merely “old untried perverts”.

    As to just who or how many were “whisked away by the Vatican” is another dubious bit. Aside from the late Cardinal Law himself – whose possible motivations were discussed on this site very recently – can ‘Dan’ name any priests suddenly thus “whisked away”?

    Why must ‘Dan’ continue to toss this stuff up and try to maximize without evidence? Short answer: because it’s his shtick and if he didn’t have it he’d have to face his own self in the mirror.

    And he tries to bring the performance home with the quasi-theological but utterly unsupported string of assertions:  that they and the Church “showed no remorse” / and therefore are “unrepentant” / and therefore “unforgiven”.

    Readers may judge the accuracy of each of those elements of his bit here, recalling that in the final analysis only God can definitively judge hearts and souls.

  87. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1123PM:

    Here he bleats about being termed “a pompous creep”, though I have never used that term. For the record here, he denies that he is.

    But what we then see is the last subterfuge of ignorance: it tries to equate itself with not being “pompous”: ignorance is pure and simple – doncha see? – while actual knowledge is “pompous”.

    This from ‘Dan’ who styles himself as “servant”, “Servant” and so on, of God Himself and then often adds that God’ll-getcha if ya don’t agree with his stuff.

  88. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1135PM:

    Here – with another demonstration of his abyssal (but oh-so-necessary) lack of self-awareness – he doth claim that he has indeed provided “proof positive” of his ranting bits: there is “that prophecy” that he “sent”  (the 9th at 1258PM on this thread).

    So – follow his mentation here – ‘Dan’ insists that he has indeed provided “proof positive” of his assorted bits because he has put up a “prophecy” of his own (or perhaps from the “prophet” he lives with).

    And so … what? We’re supposed to buy his whackulence because he tenders as proof yet another demonstration of his whackulence, this time masquerading as a Divine pronouncement?

    But there’s a method in the madness here: his chosen Scriptural pericopes don’t actually establish his points (as we have seen here) so … he has to come up with his own version of Scripture, i.e. a “prophecy” that merely repeats his (still unsubstantiated) claims while claiming to be from God.

  89. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Dan

    Thank you for your reply. 

    Again. You post nothing but classic, annonymous (and therefore cowardly), anti-Catholic bigotry.

    Be careful who you worship.

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

    • Dan says:

      Are you then an annonymous, and therefore cowardly, anti-Christian bigot and let's not forget intolerant of my exposing the lies and sins of "the Church". Apparently so, so we'll call it a draw.

  90. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Dan

    Thank you for your reply. 

    No. I am neither annonymous, nor am I publicly attacking your protestant co-religious, nor am I opposed to the truth. You, however, have exposed nothing. You have said nothing new. You have however complained at great lenght about your personal problems – blaming them on the Roman Catholic Church and the police. And you have missed no opportunity to lauch nasty attacks on Roman Catholcis. IN short you are a narrow minded bigot an a coward.

    Time to grow up I think.

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

  91. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 553PM:

    Here, trying somehow to shore up his claims about the Church and so forth, ‘Dan’ now merely repeats what is one of the most basic points at issue: what is this “True Christianity” that he seems to be saying existed before the Church and was overtaken by the Church … ?

    And among those “Apostles” was Peter, to whom Christ gave both the Great Commission and the power of the keys to bind and loose sins.

    He then tosses up – like a magpie – whatever seemingly relevant bits he has in his 3×5 pile, thus that bit about the actual title of “pope” (which was in use as a term referring to all of the bishops and other senior clergy in the East before it became exclusively associated with the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter).

    But this is irrelevant to the point at hand here: the office and the holder of the office that continued the ministry and powers of Peter (i.e. the Great Commission and the power of the keys) was in place from the time of Peter and Linus. The terms used to denote that office changed, but the essence of the office remained.

    • Dan says:

      No "the Church" until 300 years after Christ. No "popes" until 600 years after the Christ. Peter never had the title of bishop, never was a catholic, not known to be greedy, not an idolater, and surely not a habitual liar like yourself and the many I have run across from your cult of deceiving pagan heathens. Conclusion: Peter never was anything close to being catholic, let alone a false Christ, pope or bishop of Rome. That's period! Take your triple crowns and place them on your true catholic idol, Mary, "Queen of Heaven". I have no problem with Mary, mother of Christ in the Bible. Only have a problem with the lies "the Church" has put on her.

  92. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 553PM:

    ‘Dan’ then tries to bolster his stuff with the insinuation that the names of Linus (and all his successors up to Constantine?) were just sorta like “names” that were ‘pulled’ “out of the Bible”.

    As to just who has a “deceiving agenda” here … readers may judge as they will.

    As so often, ‘Dan’ quickly moves away from the historical (which is not at all his forte) to current events and goes on about Mary being called “Queen of Heaven”. (Catholic readers will already know enough to recognize the foolish ignorance of that “infallible word” bit that ‘Dan’ tries to lard onto the mess he is brewing here).

    What ‘Dan’ is trying to do here is make it seem that if Mary is Queen of Heaven then that somehow demeans the status of “the Apostles!”. Since the Apostles were the very ones to whom Jesus had given the demonstration about who is “first in the Kingdom of Heaven” then we would have to presume that the Apostles learned nothing from Jesus’ own lesson and are now unhappy at not being named “Queen of Heaven” (although, as I have recently opined, I do think that ‘Dan’ himself is rather upset about not getting the title).

    • Dan says:

      Catholic lies and liars shall never demean the status of the "Apostles". That includes the lies of your dopey anti-Christian pope, including "the foolish ignorance of that 'infallible word' ", added to all of your lying ignorance and stupidity.   servant

    • Dan says:

      Now the publiar wants to insinuate that the "Apostles" became "unhappy at not being named [the title] "Queen of Heaven". And he stupidly adds, "I do think 'Dan' himself is rather upset about not getting the title". And you think this ignorance is somehow valuable debate, rational assessing or knowledgeable questioning? Isn't it the queer child molesting priests of your cult that like to name themselves after Mary? For you to put that insult on other real men is deceitful and disgusting, underhanded and cowardly. Add lying and we can describe your complete disingenuous package, creep.

  93. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 553PM:

    But then but then but then: as if mocking his own carryings-on on this site, ‘Dan’ doth both bleat and bray:“Heresy!! I say Heresy!!” (scream caps omitted). And his essay at stentorian harrumphing suddenly dissolves into the plaintive whine about “what books of the Bible did Mary write?”. Mary’s ministry was to be Mother of Christ, as announced to her by the angel Gabriel.

    And whereas most Biblical book writers have not manifested themselves since their earthly mission and task was completed, Mary has remained rather very much active.

    ‘Dan’ then tries a pericope, Ephesians 2: 19-21, which he quotes accurately enough. What he’s going for is that there’s no mention of Mary. Alas, if no Mary, no Jesus Incarnate; her presence is pretty much presumed for being the necessity it indisputably is.

    And since ‘Dan’ is on about the Apostles, he can give some thought to how he’s been treating Peter, who was given the Great Commission and the power of the keys and ultimately died for them.

    As to who might be a “fool” (and perhaps a “pompous” one) needing “schooling” here … readers may judge for themselves.

    • Dan says:

      Mary is very much dead and has only manifested herself in the false visions of idol-worshipping hypocrites from the Cult of Satan, the catholic church. I have never denied Mary as the mother of Christ, so stop your stupidity and ignorant lies, insistent liar. I have never denied Peter or the "Great Commission", only know that nothing catholic had any part in either, and it's just more of your ignorant lying, pompous fool.

  94. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1051PM:

    Here, now claims that he doth “have absolutely no problem with the meaning” of that become-like-little-children pericope – since, primly postures, “that is what it says”. Well, that’s nice.

    But as always with ‘Dan’, rationality and Scriptural chops are not only costumes and wigs he likes to don, but are also essential bits for his ongoing masquerade. Thus he immediately tacks on – in that great giveaway “I’m saying that”, as opposed to what the actual text of the pericope is “saying” – his own preferred bit as if it would fit as an add-on even if it won’t fit as the core of the pericope’s message.

    But I had said – as ‘Dan’ seems to realize here – that the punishment mentioned is merely “worldly”, leaving wide open the question of what God ultimately judges (which would include knowing whether the accused actually committed such a sin in the first place to begin with).

    • Dan says:

      Just because catholic deceiving hypocrites won't accept true prophecy from the Almighty, doesn't in any way negate the fact that it is the Lord's Word. Sorry, lying doubter. "God ultimately judges", and he has judged the pedophiles and perverted child molesters of your cult guilty as charged, no chance of repentance for "Anyone who molests or hurts one of My little children, will be convicted on Judgment Day. You can bet on it, and they will be prosecuted and held accountable for the evilness of their acts, for what they did to Me".    servant of God Almighty's Truth, whether your doubting deceiving mind accepts it or not!

  95. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1051PM:

    ‘Dan’ then tries to break some new ground in victimology: if one is victimized, then it might be “possible” that “the innocent mind” will be “lead down the path of sin”.

    First of all, it’s merely a possibility and not a guaranteed outcome.  There is no certain assurance that a human sinned-against will turn to sin as a result of that initial instance of being sinned-against.

    Second, we would have to distinguish between a) the tendency of all humans to sin in some way and b) the far more tighly-knit sequence of a person being sinned-against in a particular way and thus then sinning-against others in that same particular way. Nobody but God the Reader as well as the Judge of human hearts can trace and sort out the causality here conclusively.

    Which is probably why Jesus limits Himself to merely this-worldly punishments in His statement.

    • Dan says:

      You might want to look into how many raped, sodomized and molested catholic children became homosexuals, caused by the sexual lusts of your disgusting leaders and perverted priests. Don't act so stupid, you should be aware of several, if you're paying any attention.

  96. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1051PM:

    As to what God will and will not do to this or that “creep”, that’s not something for humans to definitively know. Perhaps God will allow this-worldly punishment to meliorate any punishment in the next life.

    And on top of all this, we note that ‘Dan’s shopping-list here ranges from rape to ‘molest’, that ever-fungible term.

    That ‘Dan’ has huffily or pompously proclaimed anything “absolutely ludicrous” is not something that seems particularly substantive or reliable, and I counsel that it should not detain a rational mind.

    I would further counsel that while God’s truth will never disappoint, ‘Dan’s bathroom-brewed “Biblical Truth” snake-oil will surely take its toll.

  97. Publion says:

    On the 11th at 1219PM I had put up my explication of the Matthean pericope about who would be first in the kingdom of heaven.

    On the 11th at 1003PM and 1053PM we get a nice sense of the genuine ‘Dan’, exuberantly released from the burden of having to think and explain his stuff.

    But then we get the genuine howler on the 12th at 1042PM: after larding on a load of epitheticals (including, whackily, “anti-Christian”) ‘Dan’ now, somehow, after looking over the whole exchange, has decided to “call it a draw”.

    This is the type of mentality … for which popcorn is perhaps the best antidote. Lots of it.

    • Dan says:

      I called it a draw with Dick, not with you, publiar. No one can possibly lie to be equal to you. Shows your "mentality", that you think everything is solved by stuffing your gluttonous face with popcorn. Don't forget to wash it down with plenty of Kathlik-Kult-Kool-Aid, lyin' accuser.

  98. Dan says:

    You know, Dick, I have no personal problems, except those invented by your false church of lying hypocrites. The only time I mentioned these lies was when I did to defend myself, usually from publiars lies and now your stupid added accusations. I will not let you catholics claim that all your filth and nastiness is in the past and just "history". Yeah! You have a terrible history, but the fact that you've hidden and handled your perverts and perversions in house and refused to send them to the authorities has never changed. I will continue to shine the light in on your cults' filth and you can make any accusations you please. It changes absolutely nothing, including the deceit of you and your phony cult. Time for you to grow up and start thinking for yourself, instead of being one of your cults' puppets. God bless. servant of Truth

    P.S. You wouldn't know the truth if it came and bit you in the ass.

  99. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 114PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ demonstrates the emptiness underlying his entire scam: he has nothing but mere (though self-serving) assertions, which he here again parrots mindlessly with not even a stab at dealing with the problems inherent in those assertions.

    Thus – and note how the grammar gets somewhat iffy, reflecting the mentation – there was no “Church” “until 300 years after Christ” / there were no “popes until 600 years after the Christ” / “Peter never had the title of bishop, never was a catholic” and so on. (If ‘Dan’s scenario be followed, there was Catholicism for 300 years without any pope at all.)

    And all of these bits now merely emphasized by ‘Dan’s favorite “That’s period!” bray – as if i) masquerading as someone definitively knowledgeable is the same as ii) actually being definitively knowledgeable.

  100. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 130PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ tries to salvage something from his many previous bleats and brays.

    Thus he now hath “never denied Mary as the mother of Christ” (though he accords no status at all to that position) and hath “never denied Peter or the ‘Great Commission’” (which puts us right back to my point about Christ saying that upon “this rock” of Peter He would “build [His] church”).

    So where does that leave ‘Dan’? He doth “only know that nothing catholic had any part in either” – which is merely an assertion that remains baseless and undemonstrated … except by the fact that ‘Dan’ claims to “know” it. (His bathroom mirror tells him so, apparently.)

    Fundamentalism has its core problems to begin-with; in the hands of someone like ‘Dan’ those problems are simply illuminated with neon lights.

    And – but of course – ‘Dan’ attempts to substitute a thick lard of epithet for his abyssal lack of demonstration or explication.

  101. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 231PM:

    Here he slyly and deceptively tries to start the play not with an at-bat but on second base: he presumes that his recent “prophecy” is “true prophecy from the Almighty” and is nothing less than “the Lord’s Word” (and he calls others “pompous” – go figure).

    Then – lubricated by some epithet – ‘Dan’ doth declare that God [“he”, small ‘h’ to ‘Dan’] “has judged …” and so on. And ‘Dan’ just doth ‘know’ this … how? Again, ‘Dan’ proves his assertions by pointing to his own “prophecy”, in a fine little demonstration of a circular shell-game that goes nowhere.

    “You can bet on it” he brays, bringing this silly performance to a conclusion with a thick larding of self-awarded (not to say “pompous”) titles.

  102. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 148PM:

    Here – apparently having been rooting around like a hog after truffles in some fetid lowland of the Web – ‘Dan’ tosses up something about “how many … catholic children became homosexuals” because they were … and so on and so forth.

    Notice that ‘Dan’ doesn’t actually explicate the theory inherent in his bit; rather, he merely insinuates and – much like JR – hopes the reader will do his dirty work and heavy conceptual lifting for him.

    This is mere plop-tossing and the question as to the origin of homosexuality (psychodynamic, genetic, neuro-chemical, pure choice, external influences, or some combination of several or all of the above) remains as it was before ‘Dan’ went rooting for his truffles.

  103. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1051PM:

    Here – donning the Wig of Chatty Cathy – ‘Dan’ cheeribly gossips that “you know … [he , ‘Dan’, doth] have no personal problems”. Nooooooooooooooo, not a one. It’s all “lies”, doncha know? It’s all “lies” invented by your false church of lying hypocrites” and all those “stupid accusations” … is all it is, really.

    ‘Dan’ himself, of course, has looked in his bathroom mirror and pronounces himself (or Himself) as sound as a dollar, or a Biblical shekel, doncha see? Ovvvvvvvv courssssssssssssse, as the practiced practitioner might say, making notations on the diagnostic pad.

    But wait. There’s more.

    Not only is ‘Dan’ as sound as the proverbial shekel but he is also the Truthy, Heroic, Learned and Oh-so-speshull “servant of Truth” who’s gonna keep up his … shtick with bray, bleat, harrumph, insinuation, denunciation, and presumption.

    And again from the marvelous Miss Marple: that must console him.

    But – the Wig suddenly falling askew in all that vigorous head-bobbing and with the stage lights still up – the real ‘Dan’ is suddenly revealed in that nicely revelatory “P.S.”.

    • Dan says:

      There's not much of any content to respond to today, but I believe it's time for a case study of your mentality, p-brain. You go off on these odd tangents of fantasy, immature childish comments, then to cartoons or Alice in Wonderland Mad Hatter stupidity, while accusing others of having serious mental issues. As if that's not enough, you add this strange gay lisp (i.e. cawn't, Oh-so-speshull, nooooooo, ovvvvcoursssssse, etc.), thinking you're somehow being cute or that this is some display of intelligence. You would think you'd be satisfied with the ignorance and nonsense you've displayed, but then feel you need to show your effeminate side, quoting the fictional "Miss Marple" or accusing others of donning Wigs and now the "Wig of Chatty Cathy". "Methinks" you are much queer, if not actually a lying deceiving pedophile or pederast. This would most definitely explain your defense, denials and excuses for all the perverts of your false cult of lying hypocrites. And as if all this isn't enough, you mock God and His Holy Spirit, twist and misinterpret His precious word, and mock and slander His faithful, and you have the audacity to question anyone's mentality? Take a good look at yourself to find you have some obviously serious mental issues, of not the least being an unrepentant compulsive liar and Accuser. Satan must be so proud of the garbage you spew, you fork-tongued snake.    servant of the Almighty

    • Dan says:

      And lest we forget, your stuffing your gluttoness face with popcorn stupidity, though somehow your ignorant humor impresses some of the catholic cronies of your fan club.

  104. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Dan

    Thank you for your reply. 

    So you admit that you blame all of your personal problems on Roman Catholics?

    As I said: time to grow up I think.

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

  105. Dan says:

    Don't be such a jackass, Dick. Have you ever been jailed 6 times and put in psyche wards 6 more times, all based on lies and liars. Walk in my shoes and then come and tell me how you would think about those accusers. Think it's way past time for you to grow up and stop acting like the publiar. One lyin' accuser in this forum is enough. All of you put together put an awful bad light on your supposedly one true church. One true church of lying accusing hypocrites. Like I said, you idiots keep making me defend myself. I'm so sick of your cult of liars, it's the perfect combination for your cult of idolatrous pedophiles and perverts.  servant

    • Richard W Comerford says:

      Mr. Dan

      Thank you for your reply. 

      So you blame having: "been jailed 6 times and put in psyche wards 6 more times" on Roman Catholics?

      Again, as I said. time to grow up I think.

      God bless​

      Richard W Comerford

    • Dan says:

      You're going to continue blaming me, but have nothing to say in regards to the lying false accusers of your cult. You lying and accusing catholic creeps are an ultimate joke. Do you understand that it verifies that members of your cult fit every disgusting form of sinners that the Lord God says He will send into Hell's Fire? This is of no concern to you, Dick?

      "But the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."  Rev. 21:8

      "Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood [liars]."  Rev. 22:15

      If I was lying and falsely claiming that I was wrongly accused, then I would be the guilty one facing God's wrath. That would concern me deeply and I would want to do anything to change where I stood with the Lord. Catholics seem to think differently, even to the point of molesting and sodomizing little boys, followed with lying and denying these crimes, and as long as there isn't substantial proof, then they can continue in their sin. You haven't heard, "But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered." Luke 12:7 I would spend some of your time correcting and waking up your church, rather than attacking those who have already been slandered by the cult. Goddess bless, Dick.

    • Dan says:

      "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men." 1 Cor 6:9

      News to all catholics, especially you Dick. With God there's no past history unless there's change, no Statute of Limitations and no death that gets you off the hook. If God says "men who have sex with men" "will not inherit the kingdom of God", how do you think he feels about men who molest, rape and sodomize little boys? They will not have a chance in Hell. Stop your stupidity and thinking that this is nothing new and the church has really made serious changes in protecting children. They still protect and hide perverts, and try to keep them from the authorities. Nothing has changed and the perversions continue. Be ye not deceived.

  106. Publion says:

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

    Here, in an effort to sidestep the circularity of trying to ‘prove’ the divine source of his stuff by inventing his own prophecy also from the same (alleged) divine source, ‘Dan’ is reduced to merely bleating – yet again – that “just because” his (self-serving and self-aggrandizing) claims of divine authority aren’t believed … doesn’t mean that his claims do not actually possess such alleged divine authority.

    To which he immediately lards-on yet another of his assertion:  that God “has judged .. [to be] guilty as charged”. And thus we have – as so very often – ‘Dan’ using God as a ventriloquist’s dummy to mouth ‘Dan’s preferred fever-vision claims and assertions and accusations.

    In support of which he merely and repetitively appends that pericope that has already been demonstrated to be inapplicable to ‘Dan’s plop-tossy agenda here.

    Perhaps one might propose that ‘Dan’ is several sandwiches short of an honest picnic “whether [his] doubting deceiving mind accepts it or not!”.

  107. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1018AM:

    Here we get a fine demonstration of ‘Dan’s sly deceptiveness and manipulation:

    Quickly evading all the material on the table, he first sighs that “there’s not much of any content to respond to today”. Thus the Wig of Honest But Baffled Competence.

    Having – to his own satisfaction anyway – thus absolved himself of any need to deal with the myriad problems with his stuff, he immediately buckles down to his second movement: trying to change the subject to “a case study of [my] mentality”.

    For this purpose ‘Dan’ professes himself unable to see anything in my material except “these odd tangents, immature childish comments, then to cartoons …” and so on. This is merely epithetical rant costumed in the rhetorical style of sober and competent psychological analysis. But if ‘Dan’ is so reliant on costuming himself in the raiment of divine inspiration, it’s surely no big leap to pretend to psychological chops.

    Anyway, by now he’s been on the wrong side of the clinical desk enough times to pick up sufficient strands of psychological style to fashion himself a Wig and put his mimicry into a performance here.

  108. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1018AM:

    He also reports himself as having found “this strange gay lisp” … although his examples don’t support that: “cawn’t” is from old upper-class Colonel-Blimp diction; “oh-so-speshull”  recalls the ‘isn’t that speshull?’ bit from – if memory serves – shows like the old ‘Laugh-In’; “ovvvv coursssse” (with as many ‘v’s and ‘s’s as you might care to add) is a polite throw-away line generally used to let some whopper of a statement go by without starting a kerfuffle over it.

    But ‘Dan’ is – he says – a denizen of San Francisco so perhaps lots of things seem “gay” to him. Readers may consider it all as they will.

    Then he quickly moves on to epitheticals, which is much more his native mode of discourse.

    And while Dame Margaret Rutherford might perhaps be imagined to be twice the man ‘Dan’ is, it’s not her gender but the rapier-like au-point quality of her insight and the deftness of its subtlety  that is relevant here.

  109. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1018AM:

    But then ‘Dan’ gets down to his actual game-plan for this comment of his: he thinks I am “much queer”.

    But wait. There’s more.

    He not only thinks that I be “much queer” but also that I might also be “a lying deceiving pedophile or pederast”.

    Because – doncha see? – “that would most definitely explain” what amounts to my taking the air out of his many dubiously-inflated balloons here.

    The unstated presumption by ‘Dan’ here: if you don’t go along with his stuff, then you too must be … and so on. Readers may recall this gambit from old witch-trial tactics: if you don’t think X is a witch … why then you must be a witch yourself. That sort of thing.

  110. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1018AM:

    And with all that ‘rationality’ now shakily built up on the table, ‘Dan’ can let himself flow along his more preferred course, i.e. bleating about how I “mock God” and “twist and misinterpret His precious word [small ‘w’] and “mock and slander His faithful” (that would be ‘Dan’, in case you didn’t notice).

    And and and (spotlight, please, and orchestra blatting a conclusive crescendo here): how – on that (alleged) basis – do I “have the audacity to question anyone’s mentality”?

    Readers may judge this performance of ‘Dan’s as they will.

    Then he tries to bring it all home with a variant of his old I’m Not/You Are evasion: it’s not he but I that has “some obviously serious mental issues”. Ovvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv coursssssssssssssssssssssssssssse. And trying this gambit must console him.

    • Dan says:

      So publiar begins his ignorance and nonsense stating, " 'Dan' using God as a ventriloquist's dummy to mouth 'Dan's preferred fever-vision claims and assertions and accusations. So God has now in publiars eyes become a "ventriloquist's dummy", demonstrating who the real dummy is mocking God, His Word and His Truth. Why not ask the catholic indoctrinated and brainwashed fan club of publiar, if they think this is mocking of "God". Scratch that, lets not!

      And my examples of his childish immaturity and ignorance wasn't enough to demonstrate his "obvious serious mental issues", so he adds to his stupidity by further lenghthening one of his favorite responses, "Ovvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvcoursssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssse". Showing absolute proof that publiar is mentally sound?!? "Ovvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvcourssssssssssssssssssssssssssssse" he is, and readers may judge as they will. And this ignorance "must console him".

    • Dan says:

      Quotation marks after "accusations", before the publiar perverted police grammar squad comes after me.

  111. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1058PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ tries to run his now-familiar (alleged) sob-story by commenter ‘Richard W Comerford’ (although – marvelously – he just cawn’t help himself and while trying to spin a story to engage RWC sympathies poor ‘Dan’ just has to toss up an epithet against RWC too).

    But – of course – for the story to induce the desired ‘sob’ one first must presume that ‘Dan’s rather extensive legal and psychiatric misadventures are “all based on lies and liars”. Absent that prior presumption, ‘Dan’s assorted misadventures might simply lead readers to think that a number of persons who have encountered ‘Dan’ personally have drawn conclusions that readers here must base upon his assorted postings.

    To which he appends a further bleat that it is only because of “you idiots” (i.e. commenters on this site) that he has somehow gone and revealed his many gambits and interior dynamics; we “keep making him defend” himself – doncha see? – and it’s only because of that that he has wound up making claims and statements that induce more-than-the-occasional cringe. He’s – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – a ‘victim’, doncha see?

    • Publion says:

      Nothing much to see in ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1042PM, except that he does – unwittingly, no doubt – provide a nifty example of how his rationality must take a back seat to his agenda:

      Having quoted me accurately enough in his first sentence to the effect that I noted how ‘Dan’ is using God as a ventriloquist’s dummy, ‘Dan’ then in his second sentence – seeking to somehow twist that thought to fit his own agenda – declares  that it’s clear that ‘in my eyes’ God “has … become a ‘ventriloquist’s dummy’” (italics mine).

      Not quite at all. God has not – as ‘Dan’ so slyly and manipulatively put it – merely “become” a ventriloquist’s dummy. Rather, in my eyes ‘Dan’ has made God into his own personal ventriloquist’s dummy. Thus my point is not a) that God is a ventriloquist’s dummy but rather b) that ‘Dan’ has reduced God to being ‘Dan’s very own ventriloquist’s dummy. That’s how ‘Dan’ works.

      So I am not at all “mocking God”; I am pointing out how ‘Dan’ reduces God to suit ‘Dan’s own purposes and agenda. Thus, even God has to be manipulated so that ‘Dan’ can shoehorn Him into ‘Dan’s overriding shtick.

      And he tries to bring the performance home with an extended I’m Not/You Are bit, as so very often.

  112. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Dan

    Thank you for your reply. 

    Well, it does appear that you are blaming having: "been jailed 6 times and put in psyche wards 6 more times" on Roman Catholics.

    Definitely time to grow up.

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

  113. Dan says:

    I place blame where blame belongs. Lying catholic accusers were responsible for the lies, slander and false accusations in 9 of those incidences. Assemblies of god were responsible for the other 3. So much for you imbeciles thinking I'm some protestant. Maybe you should grow up Dick and stop parroting your same response. Goddess bless, idolater!

    • richard w comerford says:

      Mr. Dan

      Thank you for your reply. 

      So now you are blaming having: "been jailed 6 times and put in psyche wards 6 more times" both on Roman Catholics and Protestants?

      Again, definitely time to grow up.

      God bless​

      Richard W Comerford

    • Dan says:

      Dick, it would "definitely" be nice if you could tell the liars of your cult that it's "time to grow up". These were catholic priests, nuns, cops and several thugs we're talking about here. I learned in my youth that it wasn't right to habitually lie, threaten or bully others. These deceiving creeps and punks have yet to learn lessons in their old age, that most children conquer in childhood. It's absolutely disgusting that catholic hierarchy can claim to be the moral authority and the one true church, when plagued with such liars, slanderers and thugs. For you to defend liars and point your finger at me, shows the kind of man you are.

  114. Dan says:

    This is for all you catholic idolizers of your Mother Mary, "Queen of Heaven", who have been indoctrinated by the habitual liars of your cult. I had the opportunity of checking out the comedy act of pomp and circumstance of the Holy Father (more idolatry) down in Peru and Chile. I'm quoting pope Francis at his dog and pony show:

    "This is the land under the protection of the Madre de Dios, Mother of God." Not under the protection of God or even Jesus, but under the protection of Mary, the dead human waiting for her Judgment Day. He then incenses the altar and then proceeds to incense the idol of Mary, bowing to her and afterwards crowning her with a gold crown, idolatry described in Baruch 6:9, Isaiah 44 and Jeremiah chapter 7 and 44. He ends the ceremony praying only the Hail Mary, no prayer to the Father as Jesus taught, and then is given a large bunch of white roses that he places at the foot of his idol statue of Mary and bowing to her on his way out.

    How can you indoctrinated and brainwashed catholics listen to the liars of your idol-worshipping cult claim that they don't worship Mary. How can you stand the utter ignorance and stupidity that they cram down your throats.  servant of the Almighty God and Only Father

  115. richard w comerford says:

    Mr. Dan

    Thank you for your reply. 

    You annonymously purport that you have: "been jailed 6 times and put in psyche wards 6 more times" based on the testmony of Roman Catholics and Protestants. You also annonymously attack Catholics for their religious beliefs. These are the actions of a coward and a bigot – not a follower of Jesus Christ. 

    Kindly reflect. 

    God bless​

    Richard W Comerford

  116. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1044PM:

    Here he is rather laboriously working to get some mileage out of a recent comment of the Pope’s to the effect that the South American country which he was visiting is “under the protection of the Madre de Dios, Mother of God”.

    In the days of the Raj, India was locally governed by a British Viceroy; but that in no way could-be or ever was taken to mean or to imply that India was not ultimately governed by the Crown and Parliament in London (as exemplified so vividly in the Delhi Durbars of 1877, 1903, and 1911).

    Many British regiments had this or that member of the Royal Family as its Colonel-in-Chief or Honorary Colonel. But nobody ever tried to conclude from this that either a) such a regiment was not ultimately under the command of the Crown and Parliament or b) that such a regiment would be in open denial of the Crown or Parliament.

    • Dan says:

      I see where you're going with these analogies, and maybe for once I agree with you. The catholic church is governed and lives under the "Crown", problem is it's the "Crown" they placed on the head of their false goddess, Mary "Queen of Heaven". The same one they burn incense to, shower with roses and carry on their shoulders in their pomp and circumstance, worthless processions. Idolatry in full display, and no worries, we'll just lie as we always do and claim that we don't worship her. We just honor, adore, venerate and revere her. Time for you catholics to get yourselves a dictionary. This is WORSHIP!    servant of the Lord and Savior

  117. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 603PM:

    Here, ‘Dan’ tries – yet again – the old I’m Not/You Are bit: ya see, it’s “the liars of your cult” that really need to be told “that it’s ‘time to grow up’”. ‘Dan’ doesn’t need that advice – doncha see? – because he participates in the maturity of God, and rather infallibly perhaps.

    Meanwhile, ‘Dan’ again tries to paint himself as a ‘victim’ in all of this, since in his “youth” he saw (or was the victim of) those (Catholics, but of course) who “habitually lie, threaten or bully others”. If ‘Dan’ saw this in his youth, and not simply in mid-life when something snapped in his vision, then one must wonder just what it was that he now claims qualified as ‘habitual lying, threatening and bullying others’.

  118. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 603PM:

    But wait. There’s more.

    Referring to some others with an epithet (“deceiving creeps and punks”) that might well be as applicable or even more applicable in the recoil as in the projectile, ‘Dan’ honks about them having “yet to learn lessons in their old age, that most children conquer in adulthood”.

    The method in the madness here is that ‘Dan’ poses himself as being one of those who have indeed learned such “lessons”. Readers may consider as they will.

    The whole bit here – and it can come as no surprise – is aimed at ‘Dan’s evading the fingers pointed at him (on the basis, I would say, of his material); his preferred script would have everyone pointing fingers at – oh, say. for example – the Church.

    Because – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ isn’t a liar or a slanderer or a thug whereas Catholics (and anyone who doth “point your finger at” ‘Dan’) really – ‘Dan’ bleats – “shows the kind of man you are”. And ‘Dan’s material doesn’t show the kind of man he is … ? No, ‘Dan’ simply cawn’t see how that might be.

  119. Dan says:

    The quote of mine that publiar wishes to twist and manipulate to suit his agenda, just by substituting "adulthood" for childhood was originally – "These deceiving creeps and punks have yet to learn lessons in their old age, that most children conquer in childhood." I'm saying these disgusting liars and bullies should have grown out of their sins of immaturity in their youth. No, but these "catholic priests, nuns, cops and several thugs", ranging in ages of thirty to seventy years old, haven't overcome sins that you hear from grammar school kids. After taking me to court, still not satisfied, they would try to pile on more lies against me. Good try, consistent liar, but these incidents happening in the last ten years, were not experiences of my youth. It's sheds light on the fact that the church denied, lied, hid and protected pedophiles and perverts, because apparently they believe their lies will always prevail. Bunch of lying hypocrites, who still have other catholics in this forum to add to the lies, slander and deceit. Obviously, there is no need to mention any names, publiar.

  120. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1132PM (which appears on the site before his of the 24th at 1106PM):

    Here ‘Dan’ slyly tries a different tack: he doth “see where [I am] going with these analogies”. How nice.

    But wait. There’s more.

    When you get right down to it, ‘Dan’ is simply trying to salvage his Mary-as-divine bit. Thus he considers “the Crown” in my analogy to refer to Mary. But it won’t work; if God chose to crown Mary as a “Queen”, she remains not only human but subordinate to the Kingship of God (or Jesus, depending on how one might want to structure God and Christ into this imagery).

    The actual and historical Queen Victoria was Queen-Empress and Sovereign in her own right; Mary would be Queen only by being raised to that status by God, by virtue of her maternal relationship to Christ; and one might further say she is more aptly termed (in British regal-ology) Mother of the Sovereign (i.e. Christ) or Queen-Mother (much the same way as the present Queen Elizabeth’s late mother held such a title).

    And he riffs along on the basis of his misuse of the historical analogy and the actuality underlying it. Time for ‘Dan’ to learn something about history before he goes on and on trying to shoehorn actuality into his agenda.

    • Dan says:

      And there should be no reason not to accept the explanation and excuses of publiar, a compulsive liar, mocker and accuser of the brethren, an idolater, who is able to explain why the idolatrous catholic church is never guilty of idol-worship, of their treasure trove of Mary statues, bowing and babbling their rosary prayers to their "Queen of Heaven". Unbelievable!

  121. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1106PM:

    Here – and yet again – we see ‘Dan’ trying to somehow salvage part of his cartoon. This time, he has to presume that his bugbears “should have grown out of their sins of immaturity in their youth” (like ‘Dan’ has ‘matured’ … ?).

    But ‘sin’ is not something one ‘grows out of’ as one gets older by some normal operation of ‘growing up’. Rather, sin is endemic to humans, and surely adulthood (physically and even psychologically and – if you wish – ‘maturationally’) does not preclude sin. In that sense, all humans remain – theologically speaking – ‘immature’ (‘Dan’ – surely – included).

    What we see here is a variant of the age-old fundie problem: how to claim for oneself a moral high-ground on the basis of which one’s own personal  immaturity (or whackery) is merely an incidental trifle, whereas the failings one has selected in one’s targeted group constitute nothing less than (horrible and unforgivable) sin … ? How to pull that off?

    It is on this abyssal, molten and queasy basis that fundie (and ‘Dan’-verse) rants of righteous denunciation of others is built.

    • Dan says:

      Your ignorance and anti-Biblical knowledge of sin and forgiveness, keeps getting worse by the minute. You have no clue of Christ's forgiveness and wish to ignore obvious Biblical Truth. Making it simple for the simple minded, Christ died for our sins. We turn to Him, sorry for the horrible mistakes we've made in life and we are cleansed by His precious sacrifice. We make an honest effort to turn from our sins and work on changing our lives and our lifestyle.

      Apparently both you and your church, being obvious worshippers of the wrong god (or in your case goddess), have absolutely no clue how we become saved. You are content and happy in your greed, idolatry, sins, pedophilia and pederasty, denials, deceptions and outright lying, so you refuse the gift from God and there can be no forgiveness, because apparently you think you've outsmarted the Creator. You believe you can dupe the world into believing that your cult is the moral authority on earth, while it harbors some of the most destructive evil people, men who have destroyed the lives of countless innocent young children, followed by liars and deceivers who think they can cover up their guilt and sin through denials. Oh Yes! When God says, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.", the unrepentant sinners and liars of your cult will come to know the full gist of that statement. I'm not condemning you, but you better believe he will. Judgment will be just, swift and final. Praise be to God, the only God!

  122. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1106PM:

    Having thus headed off the road and into the underbrush, ‘Dan’ guns the engine and continues riffing  – had you been waitttingggg forrrrr itttttt? – by once again waving ‘the bloody shirt’ in his self-serving bleats about those who called the police, leading to ‘Dan’s numerous legal and psychiatric misadventures.

    And he tries to bring this performance home by slyly wrapping-together a) the “lies” told about him by those who thought it necessary to call the police so many times (and the courts that thought it necessary to send him for psychiatric observation so many times) and b) the way the Church handled “pedophiles and perverts” (which is ‘Dan’s dog-whistle phrase to summon up his assorted fever-visions).

  123. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1106PM:

    But if the actions of all those various people (citizens, police, judges) “sheds light” on ‘Dan’s case (which, I would say, was handled rightly although the psychiatric staffs didn’t see it worthwhile to try to keep him and rehabilitate him out of his delusions), then the Church’s approach to such genuinely damaged priests as there were might also retain a basis of legitimacy (especially since in the vast majority of allegations we don’t actually know anything but the ‘stories’ and allegations that found their home in the Stampede settlement-cases).

    ‘Dan’s bit here requires that we presume – as he very much wants us to – that his preferred narrative of his own misadventures is true and veracious and accurate (i.e. innocent ‘Dan’ was sorely and unjustly bethumped by the forces of society and law).

    But do not so very many criminals and mentally-compromised persons prefer to see themselves as unjustly bethumped by society and law? It’s an understandable human defensive reaction, but that doesn’t make it true and veracious and accurate.

    • Dan says:

      Your stupidity reaches new heights. Had not the liars of your cult slandered and falsely accused me, there would have never been cops, judges, the court system or psychiatric doctors or staff ever involved. What does it take to get that through your thick skull? Do all compulsive liars think that everyone else is a compulsive liar. I hate the lie. My God and Father hates lies and liars. John 8:44