Hollywood Awards Accused Child Abuser and Elmo Actor With Three Emmys; Media Sees No Problem

Michael Jackson : Kevin Clash, Elmo : Roman Polanski

Kevin Clash (with Elmo) joins the Hollywood abuse club with Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski

How do the cultural elites in Hollywood deal with a successful actor after he has been accused by at least four different men of child sex abuse? Not screaming headlines, of course. Instead, it rewards him with three Emmy Awards.

Kevin Clash struck it big in Hollywood by developing the personality and voice of the popular Sesame Street character Elmo. Yet after a number of men came forward late last November to accuse him of abusing them as boys, he resigned from the hit children's show, thus joining a growing list of Hollywood celebrities accused of sex abuse with scant media disapprobation.

Roman Polanski: 'It wasn't rape-rape'

Clash is not the first Hollywood star to be celebrated by media elites even after being accused of child sex crimes.

In March of 1977, Los Angeles law enforcement arrested famed director Roman Polanski for the savage rape of a 13-year-old girl that happened at the home of his famous friend, Jack Nicholson. Court records indicate that after Polanski plied the underage girl with alcohol and drugs, he then forcibly performed oral sex, intercourse, and sodomy.

Polanski never denied the crimes. In fact, he told an interviewer a short time later, in 1979, "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!"

Yet through it all, Polanski, the admitted child rapist, continued to have a successful and celebrated filmmaking career, with Hollywood ultimately bestowing its highest honor, an Oscar award, for Best Director for his work on The Pianist (2002).

It seems that child sex abuse can be good for one's career in Hollywood.

And, shockingly, several high-profile media figures have actually jumped to Polanski's defense. Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, and Debra Winger were reportedly among the list of over 100 Hollywood figures who demanded Polanski's release. On a CNN interview, Tom O'Neill, senior editor of the celebrity magazine In Touch Weekly, cried, "It's mind boggling why they're still pursuing this … It just seems that the prosecutors in Los Angeles won't let go these many years later."

On the nationally syndicated television show The View, co-host Whoopi Goldberg downplayed Polanski's rape of a 13-year-old girl. "It wasn't rape-rape," she claimed. "We're (the United States) a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13 year olds and 14 year olds – in the rest of Europe, they are seen, often times [as adults]."

And Tom Shales, television critic for the Washington Post, opined, "[I]t may sound like a hollow defense, but in Hollywood I am not sure a 13-year-old is really a 13-year-old."

The 'King of Pop' vs. a Catholic bishop

Bishop Juan Arzube : Los Angeles

NOT the "King of Pop":
The late Bishop Juan Arzube

Meanwhile, Michael Jackson, possibly the most successful musical artist of all time, was accused multiple times of child sex abuse. In 1993, Jackson paid a whopping $15.3 million to quietly settle an abuse claim.

In a 2003 television interview, Jackson even openly admitted that he slept with underage boys and actually defended his practice. "It's what the whole world should do," claimed Jackson.

Yet when Jackson died a few years later, and newspapers mourned the loss of the musical legend, the Los Angeles Times, for one, blared a humongous, fawning headline that the "King of Pop" had passed, with his criminal troubles merely meriting secondary attention.

Contrast the treatment by the Los Angeles Times to the death of Jackson with the death of a popular L.A. cleric, Bishop Juan Arzube, who passed away less than a year before Jackson. Arzube was the target of a single accusation during 2003, the year that California lifted the statute of limitations in order for accusers to file money-seeking lawsuits against the Catholic Church.

Arzube vehemently denied the decades-old allegation, but that did not stop the Times from devoting nearly 30 percent of his obituary to the stale accusation against him and stamping the word "ACCUSED" below the photograph accompanying it. (See for yourself and read about this episode.)

Meanwhile, unlike Bishop Arzube, charges of abuse against Jackson continue to this day, even after his death.

'The number one problem in Hollywood' you will almost never read about

In August 2011, Hollywood child star Corey Feldman flatly declared during an interview on ABC:

"I can tell you that the No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia. That's the biggest problem for children in this industry … It's the big secret."

The mainstream media's reaction to Feldman's remark, however, was almost undetectable. In fact, the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper right in the backyard of Hollywood, never even reported on Feldman's remark. Instead, the paper buried it in a little-noticed blog item a few months later.

Yet mainstream media outlets like the Los Angeles Times continue to hyperventilate over abuse committed decades ago by Catholic priests. In fact, just yesterday, the Times published a splashy, front-page, 2,100-word piece about a priest who was arrested for abuse some 32 years ago.

And surely you would never find a famous media figure defending a Catholic priest accused of sex abuse with defenses like "A 13-year-old is not really a 13-year-old" or "It wasn't rape-rape."

And so the double standard continues.


  1. Delphin says:

    Maybe that's the movie Spielberg needs to make. He could then employ his industry/neighbor pedo-fella buddies.

    Must be something awfully "quirky" in the [filthy] air out there-

  2. jim robertson says:

    Yes people in Hollywood breath air . What do your breathe, arsenic?

  3. jim robertson says:

    Such hatred. Such a wild lashing out of hatred towards others. Why? Does your side of the arguement require a frothing of the mouth? you are a rollercoaster. You are Bill Donahue after all.

  4. jim robertson says:

    The vast majority of Angelenos have never raped anyone. FYI

    • KenW says:

      The vast majority of Roman Catholic priests have not raped anybody. FYI.

    • jim robertson says:

       KenW, Did anyone say they did? Quit projecting. I see priests still treated with respect consistantly in the media. Particularly since the new Pope. If anyone thought the "vast majority of priests were abusers, would that treatment by the media occur?

      But the hierarchy is a very different story. Why? Because the hierarchy has covered up and passed abusers on to new parishes as a mater of policy everywhere. You name the country and that's what the hierarchy did:  Moved the problem around.

      When do you plan on taking responsability for those consistant crimes world wide?

    • KenW says:


      Your first paragraph, you plainly implied that the vast majority of priests raped, you did so by contrast. Conclusion: no projecting on my part. The media does not, at large, treat priests with respect. 

      Your 2nd line, that is the way that SNAP and the mainline media portrays it, but when I examine individual cases on their own merits, I find that explanation waaaaaaay to simplistic and myopic. I have found many instances where the local authorities declined to do anything, yet the "hierarchy"gave the perp the choice of a life of penance or total excommunication. I have also found many instances where the perp chose to leave, often disappearing off of the face of the planet, only to leave the diocese and a new bishop that did not even know the perp holding the bag when the accuser comes forward -decades- after the fact. 

      Your final line, 1st, it's not my responsibility. My responsibility is to my family, to my home parish, and to my diocese, now, in the present. 2nd, consistency has not been proven or established, it has only been alleged. The ones making the allegations often bypass the criminal aspect and go straight to the civil process. More often than not, the accused are either dead or have long ago left the priesthood and disappeared. Of the ones that remain that are alive and wearing a collar, very few admit guilt. Matter of fact, most of the accused that are living DOGGEDLY maintain their innocence and stand ready to face their accusers. 

      I have been Catholic for 2 years now. When I first set foot in a Catholic parish 3 years ago, the contrast between what the media, SNAP, and yourself portrayed vs. what I saw with my own eyes, that contrast was stark and vast. What is OFFENSIVE to me is the rhetoric given by the media, SNAP, and yourself creates a myopic tunnel vision, where whenever the subject of pedophelia comes up, the naive' public automatically equates that word with a collar, and their attention is diverted away from where pedophelia is happening right now, often under their very noses! That aspect of the topic at large makes me SPITTING MAD! My local news outlets IGNORED a baptist music minister caught molesting 7 boys at a local church, and it was later established that his pastor hindered the investigation and that this music minister moved from church to church unhindered with his superiors knowing he had a problem, yet the local paper IGNORED that story, while plastering the front page with    huge headlines about decades old -allegations- of abuse against priests that were either dead or long gone. I double dog dare you to put yourself in my shoes and note the contrast. 

  5. Martha says:

    Great post.

    Child rape is ok if it is done by liberals in Hollywood I guess.

  6. Mark T says:

    Whoopi Goldberg has a double standard all right. She's quite happy to defend Roman Polinski, but puts the boot into the Catholic Church. I remember seeing a Youtube video where she hit back at Bill Donohue (or as she dubed him, Bill Donohoe) for blasting her for having abortions. I remember posting on the video to express my point of view and someone by the name of Jack started giving me a hard time, even going as far as to call me a bigot. The more I defended myself, the worse he became.

  7. Delphin says:

    Such defense of the movie industry pedophiles.

    Where is the outrage over the victimization of the children? Are the anti-Catholic bigots abuse victim advocates, or not?

    Will there be the victim advocate group cottage industry springing up throughout Louse Angeles?

    Will there be special legislation proposals and "outraged" prosecutors and judges?

    Will there be politicized movements to litigate Hollywoody out of existence?

    Should the Catholic faithful, and others of honest and decent morality be demanding these things to make the movie industry "compensate" victims- beginning way back in the Golden Era to present day?

    We tried to warn you that the dog you made vicious would eventually turn on you.

  8. TrueCatholic says:

    Hollywood is much worse then the few thousand, child raping priests, we Roman Catholics, Cardinal Brady, and the Vatican, lie about.

    • Walter says:

      I don't know who you think is lying about what.  There are 1.2 billion Catholics and almost no pedders.  That is a fact.

  9. Julie says:

    That is the thing that bothers me. It depends very much on who the victim is. The focus has been on lawyers "helping" 50-year or so past claimants with little evidence. Nobody cares about victims in institutions that don't have deep pockets, and they don't care what is going on NOW to children. Absolutely ANYBODY truly victimized by evil people who got into the church should be compensated. BUT ALSO, why doesn't anybody seem to care about safety measures NOW. NOBODY asks, not the media, not the so-called victim's groups. HELLO!

    • jim robertson says:

      If other's commit crimes that can't be used as an excuse for your clergy commiting crimes..

      Why should the world be more interested in your protection of your children now when you still don't actively care about your victims then? The world can see you do nothing for us unless forced to. Absolutely nothing. You had "cure" homes (the Paracletes) for your priests and you still have nothing for your injured children. It's that real hatred for victims by their abusers, your hierarchs and by you ( you are co conspiritors by enabling, in this) that the world see's and loathes about you.

      All SNAP does is underline it's interest, it's only up front interest, and your very same interest, as being "protect the children". More concern for the unraped than for the allready raped.  Does that sound normal for a "Victims' group" to be more interested in the non abused that in the people they pretend to be interested in????? That's why they are a fake.

  10. Julie says:

    Another thing that worries me. With the focus solely on the Catholic Church, such child abuse is surely flourishing elsewhere under the light. Like Hollywood. And the schools. As we in the church discovered, you get complacent or stupid or don't have all your ducks in a row, it is going to HAPPEN, and you must be diligent.

  11. Delphin says:

    TrueCatholic is neither. [edited by moderator]

    I'd sooner send a minor boy into the Catholic Church than into the Hollywood movie industry – unless, of course, I am an advocate of the Hollywood liberalism that supports man-boy "love"  -  even if it does mean sacrificing an innocent child. After all, NAMBLA does state that these "relationships" benefit the "boy" most of all. So selfless. Yeah.

    We've been there already- before our Lord educated the pagans that openly practiced man-boy "love"- it isn't good for anyone (i.e. boy, society), except the pedophile.

    And, of course, pagan pedophiles hate the Catholic Church. [edited by moderator]

  12. dennis ecker says:

    It is funny to read that the catholics get upset when one of their priests GETS accused of child abuse and arrested and faces trial, and their argument is I have  known Father such and such for many years and he could of not have done such a crime.

    But when someone else is  accused of the same crime they must be guilty as sin.

    Catholics need not blame others or other organizations. WORRY ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOUR OWN HOUSE FIRST. Don't look at the possible crimes of others to minimize your own.

    WE will get them too.

  13. jim robertson says:


    I have to tell you that I have a very long history with Bishop Juan Arzube.

    As a child I attended mass and school at Ascension parish in south central L.A., in the early '60's Father Juan became our assistant pastor at Ascension.

    I remember being a very religious child and going to confession to Fr. Juan. Evidently I was the only 13 year old confessing to masturbation. Father Juan made my penance 2 weeks attendance at mass. His 8 am mass before school started.

    Later I was a member of Chi Rho club that met in the rectory, at a meeting i had to use the restroom. I had to go through Fr. Juan's bed room to the toilet. He was in bed (it was 8:00 pm) I remember smelling sperm saw he was naked and his jockey shorts were by the bed. He lit up when I came in and was sort of hyper smiley  towards me. Nothing happened but the energy was there.

    Years later ( early '80's) I was doing a radio show, a gay radio program on the Pacifica station KPFK. It was called I am R U. (I loathed the title).

    My first interview was with William Burroughs, author of the The Naked Lunch. Second with Harry Hay , father of the Gay movement in America.

    Looking at the time for other interviewies We had a new Bishop in L.A. it was Fr. Juan so I called him. I wanted the Catholic take on the Gay Revolution. And feeling he was gay himself I thought why not? It would be great radio.

    He spoke to me immediately; was very very nice; said it would not be possible for such an interview. But with that same energy I remembered in his bedroom years before asked me to get together with him. I said no.

    None of this proves he was an abuser but there was an energy there.

    Arzube as a young man was in a Hollywood film; and credited, It was the Razor's Edge with Tyronne Power and Anne Baxter. She,Frank Loyd Wright's grand daughter, won the best supporting actress oscar.

    I write this FYI.

  14. jim robertson says:

    I know P will ask why I would have to go through a priests bedroom to use a restroom, I don't know but Fr. John Coffield who was running the youth group said it was o.k.. (It was the closest or the down stairs was being used) Father Coffield has also been accused. By an 11 year old at a later parish.

  15. Publion says:

    The LA document dump looks to be shaping up this way: nothing really current or earth-shaking, so they will trawl the cache and occasionally come up with ‘stories’ like this, from the wayback, with as many memories from various involved players as possible.


    This will serve to a) wring whatever reader-numbers possible out of what little there is in the cache; b) keep unreflective or hasty readers under the impression that the Ball Is Still Rolling; and c) perhaps jog the memories or at least ambitions of assorted persons who might still see a future for themselves in the accusing-for-dollars game (although it seems like this vital element of the Playbook is starting to lose its luster).


    As for the curious disconnect between Hollywood’s approach to its own ‘sex abuse’ (extending far beyond Polanski’s famous/infamous incident) and the Catholic Abuse Matter: first, one can wonder how much of a ‘cover-up’ has been going on for quite some time in show-biz and even the media itself (the recently-revealed BBC-Jimmy Savile example comes to mind, as well as the examples DP mentions here).


    Second, Hollywood is now hard aground on the rock of double-standards, although the rest of the country is too (whether the fact is widely noticed or not): on the one hand, sexual activity has for decades now been touted as nothing more than i) an individual choice, with the individual making all the decisions as if it were merely a matter akin to selecting one’s favorite ice cream for a cone; ii) a healthful and indeed necessary ‘option’ which must not be viewed with ‘negativity’ (or caution or prudence) because of old (i.e. traditional) rules that were thought up by kill-joy (and hypocritical) religious types merely to interfere with personal pleasure , choice, desire, health, liberation and fulfillment; iii) an increasingly ‘available’ recreation and even usefully distracting stress-reliever for many who have lost any larger sense of Meaning in their lives (think here of not only Hollywood-party types but also several recent cohorts of youth raised in the glorious possibilities of the ‘hook-up’ culture.


    On the other hand, the same secular-liberal interests are simultaneously pushing the victimization and outrage of ‘sex abuse’ and ‘sex assault’ (see the military’s current woes, college speech and sex codes, ‘abuse’ legislation at all levels, and – some might recall – the original uproar over ‘sex offenders’ (widely and broadly defined) who were mostly men and who – like McCarthy era commies or like vampires – were everywhere.


    Thus current American culture has been trying to step down forcefully on the gas and the brake pedals simultaneously – which is neither good for the vehicle (our society and culture) nor productive of any forward motion or progress.


    The mainstream media – by and large – have accommodated themselves to this whackness by simply reporting some sex stories as feel-good narratives of liberation and fulfillment while reporting others as outrages and victimization. Yet all without any deeper consideration of the fundamental whackness of the general schizoid approach to sex to begin with.


    Underlying this, I think, is the following bit of conceptual alchemy: the only thing that can ever be ‘wrong’ with sex is if you ‘victimize’ some other (non-consenting) person. There is no other standard by which to gauge or judge ‘sex’: there are no ‘moral rules’, there is no ‘moral nature’ – either in the person desiring sex or in the person consenting-to that desired sex, and there is no official conceptual concern for any other persons whose lives might be affected by the desired sex. And, but of course, there is no relevance whatsoever here for any concern about the overall moral quality – and commonweal – of society or culture, which might well be affected negatively by such an approach to sex.


    All of the foregoing is contrary to the Catholic position on sex: that it is (like nuclear or atomic power) a marvelous but also highly volatile human capability; that it has been designed to fit into a human Nature and human Project that has been Created by God; that the preservation of the Image of God in which all human-beings are made must be the primary factor used to assess the decision to engage in sex (much as warship commanders can’t simply decide to fire their weapons because it’s a slow and boring day at sea and it would be fun, exciting, distracting, and provide some laffs and jollies to pass the time). In other words, sex is a serious and rather demanding adult-type activity for which some gravitas and competent decision-making chops are required.


    As for such cases of priestly-perpetrated genuine abuse as may indeed have happened, I continue to insist that the Church and the Bishops need to seriously spackle-up their seminary training and assessment; and that an absolutely vital element in this is to more rigorously prepare priest-candidates with a robust and vital awareness of just how all this works and what their role is in incarnating this wisdom in their own lives.


    It’s thought-provoking to realize that until 1908 the United States was still classified as a ‘mission country’ by the Vatican (coming under the authority of the Vatican office for missions). And throughout the later 19th-century and into the 20th the primary goal of the American episcopate was to somehow demonstrate to native-born Americans that the huge numbers of immigrants from Southern and Central Europe (following the sizable influx of Irish and German immigrants in the 1840s due to the Irish famine and the failed revolutions of 1848) could and would make ‘good Americans’, fitting into American society and culture.


    The American Church succeeded almost too well in conforming-to American society and culture; its responsibility to witness-to the Gospel by providing an alternative to the less-sober elements of that society and culture was diluted because Catholicism here was able to build so extensively upon the Western and religious elements already present in this country’s heritage. Things got too easy and priests and bishops became more ‘administrators’ than apostles and witnesses – thus what I call the City-Cohort mentality came to dominate.


    There was only a half-century or so after 1908 before Vatican 2 came along in the early-mid 1960s, and then the simultaneous huge upheavals in American society and culture. And those changes worked mostly toward a secularist, this-worldly, mono-dimensional framing of American and human life, with no multi-dimensional Beyond and instead only the Flattened world of the ‘Modern’ (and then the ‘Postmodern’). Even Vatican 2’s efforts to make the Church more accessible to that Modernity often wound up simply conforming the Church to (way too much of) that Modernity.


    The Catholic Abuse Matter fits in here – I would say: the Church – even in her ‘conformed’ condition – continued to provide an alternative (and I would say a true alternative) Vision to the Flattening, mono-dimensional Secularist trends in American society and eventually a concerted synergy developed to discredit the Church as an alternative (and rival) Vision and Framework for Meaning. And to the extent – not yet authoritatively established even now – that sexual immaturity had been allowed to continue within priestly ranks then the Church herself provided the fuel that gave impetus to the Abusenik Stampede.


    And that’s where we stand today, as this Stampede begins – finally – to be subjected to some amount of examination and analysis. Much work remains to be done by all concerned.


    Readers who might be interested could read John Tracy Ellis’s short but very informative and useful 1955 book American Catholicism; it is a brief and simple history of Catholic activity in North American since the first Europeans arrived and takes matters up to the immediate postwar period. Ellis, I find, is rather optimistic about the future (as it appeared to him in 1955) and you need to factor that into your thoughts about his material. There’s been a lot of water under the bridge since he wrote it.

  16. Publion says:

    While I was putting my prior comment together, two others appeared.


    We are advised by commenter Ecker that Catholics “get upset when one of their priests gets accused” (exaggerated formatting omitted).  It becomes increasingly clear nowadays that such Catholics might well find the accusation out-of-character for the priest and wonder about its veracity. Especially if they have known the priest personally and for quite a while; as opposed to those who only know that priests-are-pedophiles as a presumed mantra (or bumper-sticker).


    It is interesting to note, however, that commenter Ecker shows so much tender concern for the various celebrities and does not wish to jump to hasty conclusions, despite the media coverage. Admirable indeed. But rather uncharacteristic in the Abusenik Stampede universe.


    I would also point out that his use of the present tense (“what is going on in your own house first” – exaggerated formatting omitted) is once again a Playbook effort to Keep The Ball Rolling and lead readers to presume that it is still (name your favorite decade here).


    And are Catholics – as Citizens – not entitled to be concerned for possible sex-abuse elsewhere in the country? It is said to be rife.


    And who is this “we” (exaggerated formatting omitted) who “will get them too”? What appears here is the sense (or conviction, or delusion) that anybody who claims to be a victim is somehow deputized to go out and “get” everybody who strikes them as being guilty. One thinks of Mao’s Red Guards during the lamented Cultural Revolution. And when will this ‘getting’ be done? Has commenter Ecker and all the rest who putatively comprise his “we” already gotten started on all the rest of “them too”?


    And if we are well-advised not to “minimize” purported and alleged crimes, we should also not “exaggerate” purported and alleged crimes. Especially on such grounds as Exaggeration In the Pursuit Of Abusers Is No Vice. Especially if the abuse is alleged but not proven.


    JR then appears to give us some history, in which – but of course – he conveniently played a great part. I would only suggest that “FYI” is not quite the right phrase here, since we really have no way of knowing if what we are being given is “information” rather than … something else. I would propose “FYC”: For Your Consideration. And let’s leave it at that.

  17. jim robertson says:

    May I remind you that the issue here is not only about sexually abused Catholic children. The issue the key issue in fact is the cover up and transferring of abusive priests by their bosses the hierarchy. That's the issue the cover up.

    Why don't you lot quit whining at the victims and put the blame where it belongs on the very people you support.

    You're really cowards.

  18. jim robertson says:

    You are the ones whose  own children were put in danger by these guys. Whose side would, God forbid, you be on if you or yours were victims. Oh wait a minute, you were abused too by the very risk those enablers put you and your chilldren in.

  19. Dorothy Stein says:

    As sad and duplicitous as this story is, the polar opposite is happening in the U.S. Catholic Church where since 2002 the bishops have redefined the theology of redemption by inventing a second unforgiveable sin. I just read a memorable description of this by a priest who seems to be serving a prison sentence for the sins of the Church.  Please see Father MacRae's "Our Catholic Tabloid Frenzy About Fallen Priests."

    • drwho13 says:

      Dorothy Stein,

      Is this the guy that's doing 33-66 years? I read somthing about an appeal, but there was not enough evidence to warrent an appeal, true or untrue?

  20. jim robertson says:

    Look it up yourself nonbelieving boy. Look at Arzube's career on line at Bishop Accountability

    By the way you believe in a diety and a Resurection that have never been proved. Nor could they be.

    Why would i bother to make it up. You are an idiot. Quit insulting me or I'll sue you for the LIAR you are.

  21. jim robertson says:

    All you do P is repeat this theme: unbelievable. So you have a problem P you just don't believe except in the unbelievable

    , You've knda cancelled yourself as a discerner of truth. You are uninterested in the truth unless it supports your position. You are therefore untrustworthy.

  22. Publion says:

    At 359PM – in a comment uncharacteristic both for tone and diction (is there software available now that can work such miracles?) – JR seeks to remind us that the issue is not simply “sexually abused Catholic children” but indeed that “the key issue in fact” (has not been or is not any longer the abuse but rather) the “cover up and transferring of abusive priests by their bosses the hierarchy”.


    This is the post-2002 line, when – see my extended comments discussing the D’Antonio book – the Boston Globe needed to come up with a new ‘success’ to burnish the image of its new editor back in 2001. The Globe wanted to be seen not as simply re-hashing a decades-old issue, but rather breaking brave new ground in playing-up the “cover up” by the hierarchy; that was going to be the Globe’s contribution and its ticket to the big-time.


    But then suddenly the train of JR’s thought derails itself: Where a sentence before he had been juggling two issues (abuse and cover-up) he suddenly asserts “That’s the issue the cover up”. What dynamic might be driving this oddness? Prescinding from interior processing and mentation issues, I would suggest that the oddness stems from the tactical problem created by the fact that the Arzube story doesn’t really pan-out in the abuse department, so one has to go to the back-up generator and remind everybody of the ‘cover-up’ bit – which is then put forward as “the key issue in fact”, thereby shunting ‘abuse’ to a secondary position.


    Such are the mistakes to be made when one is trimming one’s arguments to fit the material. And if JR will now feel confounded by the fact that words and ideas have once again escaped his control … well, if you decide to play in the lab, you’d better know how to combine and not-combine chemicals and how to keep track of possible reactions when you start doing some fancy mixing with the beakers. But so many Abuseniks, I think, see themselves not so much as serious chemists working with complex and volatile materials in a carefully-structured lab, but rather like Tom Cruise gleefully and acrobatically mixing drinks for the admiring bar-goers in the movie Cocktail.


    And the media allowed them to carry on like this while seriously stroking its collective chin as if it were hearing marvelously serious stuff from seriously serious people.


    And again, one can only wonder what cocktails of words and concepts and dates and times and names were gleefully concocted behind the bar during Allegation Happy-Hours back in the day (and right up to the still-bubbling Billy-Doe trial in Philly).


    Then at 622PM JR returns to the scene – although to unhappy effect. We must be lectured as to the fact that our children “were put in danger by these guys”. Underlying this lecture is a) the sly presumption that “these guys” actually did do all the stuff concocted in the numerous stories and allegations; and b) the implicit condemnation of all of us who – in having some serious doubts about the Stampede (not to say various Abuseniks’ credibility) – are witlessly or evilly colluding with all of “these guys”.


    But then – again the lions escape the fearless lion-tamer’s control in the center ring – his idea opens up an entirely new approach to matters here: To what extent are many of the Catholic readers and Catholics generally the victims of the Abuseniks’ sustained concoctions about priests and bishops and the Church and the integrity of people who believe in God and such stuff?


    “Oh wait a minute” … that’s not where that idea was supposed to go.


    And the beat goes on.

  23. Hegesippus says:


    Is it time to redirect your energies towards other groups who need to deal with the abuse issue? Can you name any other group who have made so much progress in weeding out the perpetrators? Do you have an a priori issues creating a very strong perceived bias against the Catholic Church while seemingly explaining away issues regarding other societal groups? Can you genuinely say you are being balanced in your approach towards all abuse, or is the status of the abuser more important?

    These are merely the questions that spring to mind in reading your posts.

    God bless

    • jim robertson says:

      Heges, Your group, the Catholic hierarchy, have been forced to finally do something by victims coming forward. Their new policies emplaced to protect children only occured after victims came forward. The Church did not self correct with out our complaints. They were forced to do it.

      I was abused by Catholic clergy, enabled by Catholic hierarchs. It is with them and only them; I am concerned.

      Those abused by other groups have my full support. I focus only on who I was abused by because the vast majority of the Church's victims have yet to be compensated for their injuries.  To pretend the scandal is over, while ignoring the victims of that scandal, is both stupid and malevolent.

  24. jim robertson says:

    Listen, You've [edited by moderator] moaned endlessly about public schools having more abusers than Catholic schools; but nobody's said differently. The difference is the cover up by "religious men".  All over the world the very same behavior of cover up has been shown true of your hierarchy by documents forcibly released. So what's the deal are you or are you not, morally responsible people?

    • Hegesippus says:


      I am sorry if you found it difficult to answer any of the four questions directly. However, you have managed to answer them nonetheless.

      God bless

  25. Catholic & Proud says:

    Sounds like there is plenty of hatred going on here.  "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."  Together, this leads me to think you are all saints who are hateful – which is an oxymoron.  Consider talking with God instead of this computer.  He alone has the power to heal the hatefulness you have within you.  Lord, help them see the light of your love!

  26. dennis ecker says:

    Publion, Its not over ! When the church continues to fight the change in laws that will benefit victims/survivors its not over. When the church continues to lie and protect abusers its not over.

    I can refer you to how abusers are supervised in places like those in Childs Maryland. I can refer you to web sites like Philly.com who posted on their face page (6/28/13 posting) three articles about Chaput alone. How he states the church is financially sound, and on the same page in a different article it states the liquidation of 8 archdiocese properties, and then again in a different article on the same page it states how Chaput will announce how the church is continuing to crash and burn.

    Two different articles that prove Chaput the CEO of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia continues to lie.  What else is he lying about ? Where are the findings of these remaining clergy members under investigation by the Archdiocese ?

    See you don't see the real facts of the catholic church. It has been business as usual for them. The deceit, the lies and the attempt to minimize the crimes of the church by looking at the possible crimes of others as this article is trying to do.

    Do I believe there are individuals out there like those pictured above who are guilty for crimes against children ? Sure. Just like you and I and most of the nation believe O.J. and the bimbo from Florida are guilty of taking a life. But they are our opinions and thoughts. What I present to you are not only facts in Philadelphia but what is happening across the country.

    But the catholic seniors on this earth are dying out and they are the ones who were raised in the old school like me that anyone wearing a white collar deserves respect. Then I see and speak with the younger generation who are proud of their faith and are asking questions. Making sure ALL clergy members from any faith EARN respect. If not they will leave the church find another and take their money with them.

    Changes are coming, and the catholic church will change if they like it or not but for right now it is business as usual.

    I often wonder if I was not abused, would I be on the same side of those who continue to find excuses for their clergy members ? Would I not be standing along side Mr. Robertson in a fight to see abusive clergy members get punished. Or would I ignore the subject because it did not happen to me and would I be one of those who would tell Mr. Robertson and others like him to get over it.

    Sadly, it may have been the later.


    • josie says:

      Huh? What the heck are you rambling about, Dennis? You are making no sense whatsoever. Your high and haughty attitude is a bit obnoxious, as well. You seem to speak with some authority on various subjects but …umm..guess what! You draw the wrong conclusions,you misinterpret people, you misread material, you go off on goofy tangents. But,  I must admit that it is pretty funny sometimes.(in a Mrs. Malaprop kind of way if you know what I mean (but maybe not I suspect). 

    • josie says:

      I am sorry, Mr.Dennis, if you possibly suffer from dyslexia. Or is it that you like to SLANDER the Archbishop because of your  "victim" status, or is it your hatred for all things Catholic?  You really have a nerve calling AB Chaput a liar. Wow! That is an insane, offensive remark

      (Oh, and please, don't concern yourself with my support for the shepherd of the Catholics in Philadelphia. I assure you that he has plenty of support, respect and love in this city, all over the nation and the Catholic world.  You truly know and understand so very little. It is a shame).

      Coincidently, why do you refer in another comment to the right to know everything as if you are a Catholic? You use the word "we" as if you were deserving of information as a registered, active Catholic when you are not. (I will find where you said this if you forget and I find the time).Aren't you the guy who writes tons of letters asking to be severed from the flock.? What concern are the finances of our archdiocese when you tell people they should not contribute?  (sorry-most are not listening to you) You, who makes fun of good Catholics who love giving to their Church, tighthing, remaining active in the activities of their parish which they don't mind supporting, don't "know it all" as you seem to think. As a matter of fact, you made a comment once about people throwing $5 and $10 into the Sunday collection. News fash–people give a lot more than that on an average. But what do you know? Not much.

      I can't believe you talk to the Catholic youth in Philadelphia. It is a known fact that there is a vibrant youth population here who embrace their faith-the Catholic High Schools (and colleges are filled with very impressive kids who living their faith , supportive of their Church and are looking to the future. If you are active, you would see them everywhere. But again, your exposure is nil. 

      I am sorry for you if you have problems. I have no way of knowing if what you say is true about yourself. There are other sites where you can be a victim all day long and bash the Church and yes even speculate, spin, twist the truth, spread rumors, and tell whoppers for a reaction (oh and people will buy it all day long).   

    • josie says:

      FACT: The Philadelphia Church is not crashing and burning as I am sure you will hear but you have to pay attention now!

      TRUE: People need to earn respect (that is a given -you are right there)

      HEARSAY: Lying witnesses are holding up the completion of the remaining cases of those that were ACCUSED of some type of inappropriate conduct or abuse. Wouldn't you want a thorough investigation if you were accused of something? Wouldn't you want to be treated fairly? 


  27. Publion says:

    I think I do quite a bit more than simply repeat the theme “unbelievable”. In fact I don’t even do that. The theme I keep repeating – because I keep encountering the reality – is more aptly and acutely characterized as not-confirmable or not-demonstrable – in the internet modality and/or in any other way.


    Bishop-Accountability as a reliably dispositive source of information? Seriously?


    I believe in the “diety” and the Resurrection because I have had some rather strong personal intimations that they are actual facts, even if not scientifically and materially demonstrable. I do not easily credit JR material because I have had rather clear experiences of unreliability – and have explained them at length. In fact, let’s keep JR from distracting us from the key point in my take on things: I find his material largely unreliable.


    Why would he bother to make anything up to post here? Well, why would anyone bother to make anything up in the accusing-for-dollars Game? Ummmmm – because there is a big payoff, either fiscally or in terms of other bennies (here one would consider the psychological bennies of status or at least of the delusion of status).


    JR will sue me for being a liar? But first we have to establish the truth of what JR claims to tell, don’t we? And so back to square one. And this “idiot” is still waiting politely for an answer to the question about opening the floor to diagnostic thoughts.


    And we note the classic projection: JR uses his own brand of logic to prove somebody else is “untrustworthy” but not ever – no never – himself.  But the too-easily donned Wig of Logic only works in the personal bathroom mirror. That’s the trouble with most of the wigs in the collection.

    • jim robertson says:

      Thank you Dennis for the honest writing. I'm grateful.

      P do you wear a wig? I sure don't. So please place none on my head. Everything I've said here about my abuse; your Church; and my personal history is the truth. Just because you will or won't believe me does not stop it from being true all the same. I find it funny that an unidentified poster, sans any degree in psycology is so eager to play shrink on me. I, unlike yourself, hide nothing here but why would I want to hear an obvious bigot's opinion of me? Me, an already injured victim of your Church and it's machinations.

      You are the people who are hurt again and again by the very people who hurt us and instead of actively siding with the injured. You pretend you are the injured and are vicious about it to boot.

      I may be wrong often, sometimes, now and then, who isn't? but I am trustworthy. [edited by moderator] Jesus, whether he existed or not, was never vicious.

      [edited by moderator]

  28. Publion says:

    Now comes commenter Ecker to report – a tad breathlessly – that “it’s not over!”.


    The Church continues “to fight the change in laws that will benefit victims/survivors”. What laws might those be specifically? Surely commenter Ecker might be less vague. Of course he might be, but he slyly won’t be, because he doesn’t want to spell it out: the Church (and she is hardly alone in this) opposes the reckless extension of Statutes of Limitations (SOLs), that latest frontier in the victimist-revolutionary law strategy. Which, of course, will not only a) benefit whatever genuine victims (that Holocaust-filching “survivors” is simply too much) are out there, but will b) put the accusing-for-dollars Game back in cash-producing business while c) creating lethal precedents in the legal firewalls that limit the ungrounded expansion of the Sovereign Coercive Power (all of which has been discussed at length in prior comments on this site).


    And once again we see the old revolutionary Playbook play: if you try to defend yourself then you are simply compounding your crimes. One recalls the ants’ war-cry in – if memory serves – The Once and Future King by T.H. White: “They are attacking us by defending themselves!”.


    A few minutes ago I checked the Philly-dot-com website and found two articles on Archbishop Chaput and the AOP (links to both at the bottom of this comment). The first is the report of Chaput’s announcing “mixed financial news” about the AOP in the upcoming annual financial report. That piece goes on to say that as a result of decades’ worth of less-than-effective fiscal management some hard decisions had been postponed and he has now taken some of those decisions.


    Leading to the second article, in which eight of the AOP properties for sale are listed: old former schools and old former convents. Hardly an ill-advised corporate move, disposing of un-needed real estate and facilities. One might notice the DOD’s recent announcement that it will leave or scrap seven billion dollars worth of equipment it sent to the AfPak theater and is deemed too expensive to justify shipping it home (including half of the twenty-five thousand MRAP IED-protected vehicles – at a million apiece – that were specifically developed and produced in quantity for operations in that theater).


    Where is Chaput “lying” here?


    And although I couldn’t find a third article where Chaput claims the AOP is “financially sound” (unless it’s part of what he did say in the first article I referenced) I can state that corporations that are divesting themselves of unnecessary facilities and properties are far more financially sound than corporations that don’t. Is that news to Ecker?


    And I will need to see the link to the article in which Ecker claims that Chaput “will announce how the church is continuing to crash and burn”. And if Ecker thinks that divesting the aforesaid types of facilities and properties is a sign of ‘crashing and burning’ then his reliability as a financial commentator is rather substantially self-undermined.


    Thus then Ecker also undermines the next step in his Rube-Goldberg construction here: that since Chaput is “lying” about the fiscal health of the AOP then – waitttttt forrrrr ittttttt! – “what else is he lying about?”.


    Thus then Ecker also undermines the next next step in his Rube-Goldberg construction here: that therefore I “don’t see the real facts of the catholic church”. What “real facts”, pray? Because so far here Ecker has presented precisely none.


    Thus then Ecker also undermines the next next next step in his Rube-Goldberg construction here: that what he “present[s] to you are not only facts in Philadelphia but what is happening across the country”. First, he hasn’t presented anything but his own assertion here about what is going on with the Church in the rest of the country. Second, if what he means is that the Church is finally spackling up its corporate management chops and starting to get rid of unnecessary properties, then we’re back to square one (see above).


    He then opines that with “catholic seniors on this earth” now “dying out” then – apparently – there will be an end to the idea that “anyone wearing a white collar deserves respect”. Since I don’t have access to the same tea-leaves, tin-foil hat, or voices that seem to sustain and inform Ecker, then I’ll just leave that assertion to hang up there where it was put.


    I might – however – suggest a far more relevant change that Ecker might consider: that not everybody who puts on the Wig of Victimization and heads for the nearest stage “deserves respect” simply because they have put the Wig on. (The Wig, marvelously, operating not so very differently from the “white collar” in the dynamics that Ecker himself has set up here.)


    One wonders how any of these Wig-wearers will respond if any of the fresh generation of questioners start asking They of the Wig any probing questions about the genuineness of that Wig. From what we have seen on this site or in the Billy-Doe trial, I don’t think the questioners will be well-received at all.


    As far as spackling-up the seminary formation and episcopal chops, commenter Ecker is hardly breaking new ground here at all. I myself have commented at some length at what I would like to see happen.


    And in what way is it “business as usual” for the Church? Ecker himself has clearly demonstrated that corporate management is being spackled-up and if he cares to characterize the Dallas Reforms (and their subsequent enhancements) as “business as usual” then let him say so, because it sure doesn’t look like “business as usual”.


    In fact, it seems that only Ecker and They of the Wigs are actually still locked into “business as usual”. The hot ironies.


    Ecker will also need to demonstrate where – if he is referring to this site – he finds “those who continue to find excuses for their clergy members”. For that matter, he will first have to define that charge of ‘finding-excuses’ so that we are all clear on just what he means. We don’t want another two-years-equals-a-career type of mix-up here, as so often happens with Abusenik material.


    And again and again and again: we really don’t know when we are actually dealing with an “abusive clergy member” and when we are dealing with a phantasm created – or concocted – by various allegants. If Ecker has any solution to this profound difficulty – beyond simply presuming the truthiness of anyone who has put on the Wig – then I for one would deeply appreciate his sharing that solution. I shall await a reply.


    Lastly – and passing over in silence Ecker’s valentine to JR – I would suggest a) that they not “get over it” but rather that they get on with it. It is decades later and – as with MADD’s efforts in the matter of drunk-driving – things have changed. And in this I am accepting for purposes of the present discussion that Ecker and JR can be characterized as other than other-than-genuine victims.


    But b) I would also point out that competent therapeutic practice would call for enabling the patient to move forward, having gained some mastery of whatever (genuine) unpleasant experience was undergone. But for such patients – decades later (and again, presuming the actuality of the claimed experience) – to still be waving that bloody-shirt and indeed clinging-to it … that would not be considered a good thing at all. If any commenter cares to provide the name of any clinician who has given them contrary advice, then let them share it – because such commenter has truly been abused.





    • jim robertson says:

      "They are attacking us by defending themselves" is exactly what we can claim the Church is saying about victims through you and what you write. "us" being the Church; and those "defending themselves" being the abused.

      Playing the victim is not the same thing as being one.

  29. Martha says:

    Jim why don't you stick to the post topic?

    • jim robertson says:

      Martha, If you mean by "sticking to the post topic" agreeing with the "post topic"? Never Watching Catholics trying to wiggle their way out of moral responsability won't be happening, without criticism, while I'm alive.

      And frankly since I'm the only one here who knew Bishop Arzube I feel I'm a bit closer to reality re topic than you.

  30. Delphin says:

    Church (i.e. Catholic) haters will never acknowledge that the Church has successfully, and completely addressed their minor abuse problem.

    Church haters will never accept the annual reports as having any integrity- no matter the evidence. Evidence is foreign to Church haters, think of the latest trials against innocent priests.

    Church haters will reference corrupt media to defend their position that the Church has not fixed the problem.

    Church haters will permit the ongoing abuse of minors everywhere else so as to ensure that the cannons barrel is aimed soley on the Church- this is as a result of the insatiable hate for the Church that drives them.

    Church haters are not to be trusted with the Truth- they have demonstrated by their words and deeds that they are not friends of the Truth. The Truth to Church haters is something to be twisted and distorted to support the 2000 year war of hate they've waged against the Church.


    • jim robertson says:

      What about us, "Church haters" that were raped by your Church. That rape being the very foundation for our "hatred". [edited by moderator]

    • KenW says:

      You were not raped by the Church, Jim. You allege that you have been raped by an individual wearing a collar, but you were not raped by the Church. Get that fact straight.

  31. Delphin says:

    I wonder why this site is apparently only haunted by the ghosts of well-compensated and adjudicated "self-declaring" victims (who also happen to be uncontestable antiCatholic bigots)?

    Where are all the "thousands, millions" of uncompensated, unadjudicated "victims" out there?

    Where are the "thousands, millions" of compensated and adjudicated victims that don't also happen to be antiCatholic bigots – don't any exist?

    Wouldn't these groups be interested in using the TMR forum to contribute to the dialogue or expose the Church "lies", educate the "illiterate and unenlightened" faithful Catholic masses about "cover-ups" and "ongoing" abuses in their evil Church?

    Where are these victim unicorns?

    Do these unicorns know who have set themselves up, in the form of the magical "get your  Church-booty pixies" as their spokemen? Is there a "finders fee" associated with these "services"? Is it a case of "I got mine from the evil Church, I can show you how to get yours, too"  that enables these magical  "pixies"  to get their kickback from similarly-minded lawyers? Corrupt lawyers use the services of these sorts of "street pixies" (called CI's), for which there is direct compensation for every productive "case" referred,  all the time – has anyone investigated these illicit alliances?

    I am wondering why those who have gained their justice, such as the two TMR "pixies",  still beat the drum – so very much louder and longer than all other victims. And, no one is buying the  "it's for the other guy"  pant-load.



  32. Publion says:

    JR insists that he doesn’t wear a wig (while trying the old I don’t/You do comeback from the cafeteria).


    Here’s what I think and why I think it: I think JR does wear a collection of wigs. How else to explain the rather extraordinary variance in the tone and quality of his comments? If he is doing it deliberately, then we have to ask ourselves why anyone capable of the (seemingly) higher ranges of comment-quality would even want to deliberately descend to the lower ranges and to descend so frequently and so vividly (again with thanks to DP for deleting the expletives).


    On the other hand, if he is not doing it deliberately, then clearly there is a variety of personas or ‘wigs’ in there, and no rhyme nor reason as to which one will be in charge (which wig will be on the head, as it were) when the tap-tap-tapping at the keyboard starts.


    Which would then leave the question: is there any deliberate control over which wig is on the head that is doing the tapping at any given moment?


    I make no effort to answer these questions. I simply point out my own thought to explain why I will continue with the wig imagery. The readership, as always, may make of it what they will – as is their right.


     JR is welcome to assert the truth of whatever he claims. But he is invited to consider – from all of his material here (and on the BigTrial site, among others) – why others might rather reasonably and legitimately consider his truthiness to be rather unreliable.


    Again with the “unidentified poster” – and yet JR has burbled and gone gaga over the commenter ‘Learned Counsel’ (ex-‘Boston Survivor’) who not only does not use his name but also makes the most extraordinary (in terms of the quality of his material) claims for himself. Clearly using one’s name does not enhance the truthiness or quality of one’s comments.


    He will – tah dahhhhh! – not be approving any thoughts as to matters-psychological since he doesn’t need to submit himself to a “bigot”. ‘Bigotry’ here meaning that I notice the Wigs and am rather curious about the dynamics involved.


    And JR has “nothing to hide here” … except the story that got him his million (yes, minus the outrageously victimizing attorney’s costs and fees). Imagine if a person goes into a bank and claims to a loan or finance officer that he is victimized by not-having-money and insists on being given some; the officer asks politely to look at this person’s financial history; the person replies that to have his financial history examined will merely serve to ‘re-victimize’ him by reminding him of the fact that he doesn’t have any money.


    You see where this sort of thing can go. Indeed, did it not play out in the mortgage crisis that led to the finance crisis of 2008? “Funny how the night moves” (as the Songster saith): the basic dynamic that played out catastrophically in the mortgage/finance crisis was the same one that had been deployed in the Victimist and Abusenik universes for two or three decades prior to that.


    Thus JR merely wishes us to accept without further ado precisely the point that is at issue and that may have been the base dynamic in creating and sustaining the Stampede: the unexamined acceptance of claims and allegations. And yet he cawn’t think why anybody would have some doubts about granting this point gratuitously.


    We see here the Stampede writ-small.


    What am I ‘hiding’? My thoughts? My ideas? My questions? And what  - aside from his name – is JR hiding here? Again, this point is made not to get into the mud with JR but simply to demonstrate further the dynamics operating here.


    We are then lectured that we have been “injured” by the clerics and hierarchy and that we thus should be “actively siding with the injured”.


    But a) we don’t really know who is genuinely “injured” and who is otherwise classifiable.


    And b) we don’t know the extent of the genuine injuries – either in specific cases or in general – and thus we are denied the information that would enable us to assess how large (or otherwise) a “crisis” we as a Church face. And instead, we are bethumped with the wiggy insistence that we simply take allegants’ word for it and join the Stampede. Stampedes are such fun, and can be remunerative if you chart your course right.


    And c) I note the ‘taking-sides’ trope: to the Abuseniks, among their other juvenilia, is this basic sense of us-vs.-them and whose-side-are-you-on. This is not the best way to seriously assess a rather complex set of assertions leading up to the claim of a major ‘crisis’ that exists, has existed, and will continue to exist. Instead, we are either ‘with’ the Abuseniks or else we are (fill in the blank here, possibly  starting with ‘bigots’ or ‘haters’ or ‘truth-deniers’ and go on from there). This is a Cartoon approach.


    JR then claims that even if he is occasionally wrong, well – “who isn’t?”. But that is not the crux of the matter. People who are demonstrably wrong will – if mature – deploy self-examination in order to discover where and why they are wrong and thus institute some changes in their methods of operating that will result in being either less-wrong or less-frequently-wrong in the future. I have seen no such trajectory in any material from this particular commenter over the course of a year or more. It is what it is.


    Lastly, “Jesus was never vicious”. So true. Calling people “Idiot!”, “Fool!”, stuff like that. But He also called the shots as He saw them, whether chasing money-changers out of the Temple or engaging various sly interlocutors with ideas and reasoning. And, of course, if you don’t agree with JR then – the bouffant Wig of Hurt Outrage here, although rather clumsily stacked on top of the spiky Wig of Sly Nastiness – you must be and are “vicious”.


    Ovvvvvvvvv coursssssssssse.

    • jim robertson says:

      Brutalized as a child, Brutalized as an adult. Catholicism = Brutality to me. Thanks, lesson learned.

    • KenW says:

      Pure evil of you to equate disagreeing with you as "brutalized". That is Goebbelistic deceptive propaganda in it's very ugliest form. 

  33. Delphin says:

    If you can hate the Catholic Church because of your rape, why can't you similarly hate the deviant homosexuals (again, those homosexuals that commit the illegal and immoral actions) that actually committed the crimes? Church doctrine, and her faithful priests and laity, clearly condemn such acts. 

    Do you hate buildings because it was within a building the crime against you occurred? Do you hate men because it was a man that committed the crime against you? Was he blond, brunette, redhead – do you hate a certain hair color, or skin and eye color as a result of your stereotyping?

    Where is the logic?

  34. jim robertson says:

    Because the matrix, the Church, enabled the damage to all victims by not warning our parents.

    You don't care what I think any way or really what any victim thinks.

    You know I came here to tell you my truth about my experience and maybe engage constructively with the peope here. That's not happening. obviously. So it's break time.

    I don't hate my abusors they are very damaged people enabled to act out sexually by the Church's pretending it never happened in the Catholic Church when in fact it was endemic to the Church. It's the people deemed normal who enabled these abuses to occur that I hate.

    It's break time. I don't enjoy the people who respond from your side and they are so set in their ways, rational discourse seems verbotten. IMNSHO and really the people who post the most [edited by moderator] are beyond any hope. Break time.

    • KenW says:

      The time has come for you to distinguish between actions/inactions of individuals vs. actions/inactions of the Body. 

      You are correct, in that I do not care what you or any "victim" thinks. The reason for that is simple: the collective mindset of "victims" is not interested in resolution and healing, they are interested in spite and scandal. You have made it clear on these pages that you choose to live with your demons. If that ever changes, then I will care.

      We have no proof that what you claim is the truth, your account is simply anecdotal to your experience, and what nerve you have to imply that your experience is relevant and ours is not! Newsflash!!!!!!!!! The problem of pedophelia is rampant everywhere EXCEPT for the Catholic Church, and it is attitudes like yours that divert the attention AWAY from where it is happening RIGHT NOW! The devil LOVES diversion. 

  35. dennis ecker says:

    This is the headline that Publion chose to leave out and the one I spoke about in a earlier comment. All three articles were posted at the same time.


    Philly archbishop: Church finances are improving


    Why does Chaput continue to lie ?


    Then Josie wrote this: I can't believe you talk to the Catholic youth in Philadelphia. It is a known fact that there is a vibrant youth population here who embrace their faith-the Catholic High Schools (and colleges are filled with very impressive kids who living their faith , supportive of their Church and are looking to the future. If you are active, you would see them everywhere. But again, your exposure is nil


    The catholic youth you speak about are they the same ones who entered mass yesterday with their hands tied behind their backs, or are they the ones who were wearing blindfolds or were they they ones who had their mouths covered and are they the same youth who have left comments today on Philly.com.



    • josie says:

      Just so you are aware, Dennis. The reporter said that one man had a blindfold, one woman had tape on mouth, and one man had his wrists tied-all in protest of the closing of the Spanish chapel owned and wanting to be sold by the Vincentians . You are not in the loop of information-no matter how much you read philly.com (and because you read only philly.com!!) Get over your despicable ignorance and hate. Get help ASAP.

  36. dennis ecker says:

    It looks like Chaput needs to return to the Seminary.

    During a Mass yesterday here in Philadelphia it appears the leader of the catholic faithful (Chaput) has stepped over the line by refusing to give communion to individuals who were celebrating mass in addition protesting the closure of Church's in their neighborhood.

    It has been understood that Chaput refused to give communion to one individual because he was protesting.

    Under the Catholic Church' Canon Law it gives examples when a parishioner maybe refused Holy Communion. (e.g. excommunication, mortal sin) Since Mr. Chaput in no way knew the truth of this man' soul chaput had no right to refuse the sacrament.

    • josie says:

      You are a sick man, Dennis. I am sure that Archbishop Chaput prays for you and would encourage all to do so. I have not 1/100th of his charity

  37. Delphin says:

    This is an interesting lesson in how to forgive your "victim" [damaged] homosexual rapist(s) while simultaneously condemning the Catholic Church as bigots and haters:

    "I don't hate my abusors they are very damaged people enabled to act out sexually by the Church's pretending it never happened in the Catholic Church when in fact it was endemic to the Church. It's the people deemed normal who enabled these abuses to occur that I hate"

    It is the good Catholics (presumably faithful, hetero, conservative) to blame for the "bad actors". Even those darned rapists were victims of the bad old Church.

    Oh, OK, now we all get it, in your own words.

    I'd look to run away on a self-imposed "sabbatical", too, If I had the nerve (kinder word for what the disease of rational actually is) to think, never mind actualy write,  those words

    And, on a related topic:


    Isn't that an…. interesting development?


  38. Publion says:

    The third article in commenter Ecker’s collection is linked-to in his 855AM comment above.


    The article specifically points out – in its first sentence – that “troubling financial date being released next week about [the AOP] does not reflect recent improvements in the church’s monetary health, according to the archbishop”.


    The Archbishop is saying here – again – that the data for the past year are not as happy as he’d like, but that the data, including the annual fiscal audit, do not reflect the upcoming sales of unnecessary and unused properties and other cost-saving measures and new fiscal leadership that have all been recently introduced. (They and their fiscal effects will, of course, show up in next year’s audit … is commenter Ecker not clear on the concept of annual audits?)


    Thus – again – the Archbishop took steps during FY 12 that will improve the fiscal position and those steps – offering great reason for optimism – will be demonstrated in the FY 13 audit. Meanwhile, the FY 12 audit reflects the accrued and accumulated fiscal problems left from several prior decades and archiepiscopal administrations.


    He honestly reveals the present state of affairs, explains some of the new programs and measures and steps being taken to improve the AOP’s fiscal position (including those sales of unused properties), and expects that those measures will demonstrate their effectiveness in the audit for FY 13.


    So once again I ask: where is Chaput “lying” here? What here differs from any conventional corporate fiscal audit report?


    Thus nothing changes in the gravamen of my comments of 728PM on the 29th.


    I would also note, in terms of process, the wiggy all-caps and exclamation point restatement of Ecker’s original (and – I think I have demonstrated clearly – grossly flawed) crash-and-burn conclusion. Behind this is some sort of molten persona that is rather different from the Wig of Sweet and Mature Reasonableness. And once again then, we see this jarring dissonance in presentation and in the particular persona in charge when this or that comment is made.


    I will venture a further thought here. We have after all this time seen very little closely-reasoned and coherent explanations of the various aspects of the Abusenik position in the Catholic Abuse Matter.


    One possible explanation for this is that the serious and coherent and capable thinkers supporting the Abusenik position in the Catholic Abuse Matter are simply too busy to bother themselves with explaining themselves carefully in this (or any other?) forum. And that consequently the field is left to such commenting mentalities as we have seen demonstrated so often here.


    But – as I said – one doesn’t run into competent and coherent forthright explanation of the Abusenik position very often anywhere else either. Even on Abusenik-friendly sites, the commentary does not run to extended thought and analysis; rather, the vast majority of material is simply rehash and repetition of mantras and claimed-‘facts’ and the quality of thought resembles more the bumper-sticker school than any other school of conducting thought.


    Thus the thought that occurs to me is that there really is no serious and substantive core to the Abusenik position in the Catholic Abuse Matter. “There is no there there”, to use Gertrude Stein’s pithy phrasing.


    Instead, I would say that what has driven the Abusenik side of the Catholic Abuse Matter is merely a collection of unexamined claims, assertions, allegations, and the bumper-sticky conclusions drawn from that mélange, repeated ad nauseam and greatly amplified by a collusive media that largely has not bothered to do any analysis, but rather simply serves as a public stenographer of whatever this or that Abusenik or Abusenik-advocacy group has concocted and rehearsed for public performance and consumption.


    Think of it: an Oz-like show of smoke and mirrors, run by clanking and grinding machinery for which media refusal to ask any ‘insensitive’ questions has created the curtain that hides the actual reality of that Oz.


    This is not to infer or imply that there have not been specific instances where truly deranged individuals were for a time allowed to function in the priestly ministry – and I have commented about that before. But that the genuine reality amounts to a wide-spread, ages-long, profoundly deep and frightfully deranged individual and corporate Church clergy and hierarchy … where have we seen any evidence of that at all?


    All we have are that faithfully-stenographed mélange of unexamined claims and assertions that provide the wood that is then whittled into the most sweeping and vivid sharp-stick conclusions that are not supported by any actual evidence. Nor, as I said, by any serious and coherent and sustained explanation or analysis or exposition.


    There are times when it must occur to some readers: why bother with the crazies at all? I have offered my answers to that question before. But I will add now that in terms of looking carefully at the Catholic Abuse Matter, there may not be any other type of commenter (pro the Abusenik position) to engage.  The Abusenik Oz project has either not attracted support at that level of serious discussion and thought, or else it does not dare expose its vital core vacuum by engaging – especially publicly – in any such level of serious discussion and thought.


    Get selected story-tellers in front of the media to tell the stories, but don’t get into any serious analysis or even explanation (beyond the sound-bite friendly bumper-stickies and the usual mantras).

  39. Delphin says:

    The Truth can be Brutal to those hell-bent on continuing or enabling Evil acts.

    Then, you've got the other one opining a priests decision not to provide one of the Sacraments to Church dissidents. These self-engrandizing individuals decry the Catholic religion, her priests, laity and her dogma, doctrine and magisteruim; and then think their opinions have any value regarding our obligations. Their egos are boundless.

    Here's a suggestion- the practice of our religion, and the true administration of such by our priests to the faithful, is neither a democracy nor a republic, and certainly not subject to your opinions, complaints, whining… or polls. But, your chosen current US Administration is (well, at least it was at one time). Why not go haunt the Obama White House website with your opinions and grievances – maybe they will be "receptive" to your criticisms and musings (which is an interesting concept given the NSA, AP, IRS, Benghazi, Syria, Egypt,  et al scandals du jour). They evidentally need your "guidance" on how to conduct their business, your business, presumably with your tax dollars….far more so than does the Church. The Church does not need you.

    And, the conduct of Church business is simply not your business.

    • Grace says:

      Re: Delphin (post) July 1 @6:07 p.m

      The answer is because they are cowards.  There is so much conversation in our society

      with regards to the prevention of bullying, which is good.

        Who is better poised to advance this agenda than a man or woman who has dedicated their life to peace?

    • dennis ecker says:

      The church does need us. If for anything they need us as a number just like you. You are nothing more than a number. That is why me and others are denied an official excommunication when requested even after we denounce the teachings of the catholic church.

      Then you have the conduct of the catholic church that is now everyones business. It is the business of everyone who wants to see justice be done to any clergy member who harms a child.

       I will presume that you are a parishioner ? If so, you are just as dangerous to children as those who physically harm children. Because you have a voice to question what happens inside your church but you do nothing but sit back and let it happen.

      It is true that I am an ex-catholic but I care more about the wrong doings in your church then you do. So step aside let me do what I have to do.

  40. Publion says:

    Two quick points:


    Commenter Ecker claims that I “chose to leave out” the third article he referenced. I specifically said that I couldn’t find it, provided the links to the two I could find, and asked for any further links to the third article. What we see here again is an instance of how the Abusenik mind works. And this is on top of the fact that the third article, when examined, doesn’t support any of Ecker’s claims at all anyway.


    Meanwhile, JR (at 102AM on the 1st) now assumes the Wig of Exasperated Honesty and claims that he had originally come to this site “to tell you my truth about my experience and maybe engage constructively with the people here”.


    Several points arise.


    First, the curious phrasing “my truth about my experience” (italics mine). The conventional phrasing here would be ‘the truth’ … but perhaps this is either a) an unconscious admission that what JR thinks is ‘truth’ and what would generally be construed as ‘truth’ are two different things or b) a sly way of leaving wiggle-room about ‘truth’ without making it too obvious.


    In which case (b) would be a neat Playbook ploy: use wording that will leave the impression of having told the ‘truth’, while – if you are called on it – leaving room to claim innocently that you had specifically said “my” truth.


    Second, I have seen very little from this commenter that indicates either the competence or the basic attitude to “engage constructively”. Rather, there have been nothing but assertions of dubious and unsupported claims and allegations and assertions, buttressed by a remarkably consistent reliance on mockery and expletives. Thus the Wig of Sweet Reasonableness simply doesn’t fit here at all.


    Third, we are now given yet another reason why JR comments on this site; we had previously been told that he did it because it somehow “amuses” him to traffic with “immoral” types here.


    Fourth, we may be seeing here yet another ‘retirement’ from the TMR commenting ‘stage’ by this veteran hoofer. This would give him almost as many farewell-tour comments as Cher or perhaps The Rolling Stones (although The Stones may not have actually ever claimed to be retiring, come to think of it).


    But in any case, a “break” from the expletives-deleted material will certainly be welcome. Perhaps it will also give readers a chance to evaluate the JR thought (expressed most recently on the BigTrial site) that without such types as himself and assorted lunch-and-valentine partners then the commenters on the site “would have nothing” worthwhile to discuss.


    All of which goes ultimately to the point I made in my most recent prior comment here: try to examine the core of the Abusenik position in the Catholic Abuse Matter and you get no substance but only psych-drama.

  41. dennis ecker says:


    Headline from MSN today:

    Documents show Milwaukee archdiocese shielded pedophile priests

    By Brendan O'Brien and Geoffrey Davidian, Reuters

    Roman Catholic Church officials in Milwaukee vigorously shielded pedophile priests and protected church funds from lawsuits during a decades-long sex abuse scandal, according to hundreds of newly released documents.

    Those who feel it is lives under a rock or does not want to face reality.

    Another thing that I see that these two authors of this article did right was to call it right. The church protected PEDOPHILE PRIESTS. They did not say what others on this site say it being a homosexual problem. 

    The continued crimes within the catholic church can only be blamed on one group of people, and that is the parishioner who fails to question their church, the parishioner who allows the abuse to continue, the parishioner who is not saying enough is enough.

    WAKE UP.

    You are just as guilty as the priests who put their hands on an innocent child.


  42. Delphin says:

    Re: Josie's observation: it is the same sickness that prevents these "victims" from admitting their "know-nothing" mentality and also from receiving the gift of restorative health and forgiveness that most victims of crime experience.

    You would think these two were the only victims of crime in the world. Such a very small world they inhabit, one that revolves around them.

  43. LearnedCounsel says:

    "You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know."

    ~ William Wilberforce


    Kevin Clash is guilty. Ovvvvvvvvv coursssssssssse. Let's see what can be done about it. The revolution will be televised. These cases do get covered in the media.

    And there is a revolution, by the way. And cause behind the revolution is the promotion of secular communist ideals  .  .  . no, just kidding, it is standing up for children against sexual abuse by adults. It is truth coming out. We know so much more now.

    Even when, for whatever reason and they are many, cases cannot be brought before or won in a court of law, one can know the truth of the matter. You get the best information that you can and then use reason and weigh evidence against interest. And, yes, you could be wrong. You could also be right.

    Publicly Publion may relax on this comment, of course, because this is a secular matter and thus does not require his attention. Anyway, I assume that he is preparing the apologetics of Mr. Dolan and the most recent media treatment of the latest so-called "document dump," as if that were an apt description, of Milwaukee, WI.

  44. Delphin says:

    For the haters/bigots: Presume nothing about me, personally, just be responsive to comments.

    Re: Milwaukee; I have about as much confidence in the MSMs honest translation and interpretation of those 6000 pages of documents as I do that the TMR resident Church haters will suddenly speak in tongues of Truth.


    You're right, Grace, the last thing these cowards want is resolution, or healing. Just look at the celebratory bent of their posts about the Milwaukee Archdiocese, they can barely contain their euphoria- it must be absolutely orgasmic for the satanists.

    Not so fast revelers, the whole truth, in perspective, and within context, will have to be first revealed, and then analyzed.

    Re: Clash- yeah, I am betting the farm that the MSM will perform the same minor molestation procto exam on the entertainment industry as it has on the Church. Yeah, right, sure.  Just like they did with Polanski and Jackson, and thousands of others. What I would expect to see is a movement to suspend the SOL, not to indict Hollywood or the public school system and few hundred other industries still offending, but, to refocus on the Church. The problem isnt about minor abuse for the progressives, it is about their hatred of Catholics, and that will feed the frenzy.  And, that is what makes you all so happy.


  45. Delphin says:

    "Pedophile priests" that are heterosexual would be targeting prepubescent girls, which does not happen to be in line with the facts of any authentic cases that involve the Catholic Church.

    The majority of the real victims are post-pubescent juvenile males, which makes their adult male offenders homosexual statutory rapists.  In my chosen lexicon, that makes them deviant homosexuals, but you can call them oppressed sisters in arms if you choose, so long as there is recognition of the facts (not subject to biases, polls or PC) of who these offenders are sans any of your hate-based scrubbing.

    Which leads to an interesting question for the medical community: why don't heterosexual adults of any vocation or occupation offend at the same rates, proportionately, as do homosexual adults?

  46. Delphin says:

    "You name the country and that's what the hierarchy did:  Moved the problem around."

    Time for a fact, or two: awhile back I provided links to sites that identifed sovereign nations Age of Consent (AOC) laws and sites that identified nations where homosexuality was illegal (for which capital punishment, in some cases, was the penalty). If the blinded-by-hate types had bothered to peruse them, we could all be spared dopey statement and claims.

    So, in light of the facts pertaining to relevant laws of other nations and in response to the ignorant quote above, the Church's problem in many other nations was one of the conduct of illicit homosexuality, which is outlawed at any age, or no issue at all since the AOC was not violated, and in some nations, where both a low AOC and outlawed homosexuality were applicable (usually mideastern nation-states).

    In those nations where no crime was committed against that nations AOC laws, why would the above erroneous claim apply?

    In those nations where homosexuality is forbidden by law, should the Church have condemned those homosexuals under that nations draconian anti-homosexuality laws?

    The small-minded (miserly, really) cannot grasp the breadth, width and depth of the Church's global responsibilities, obligations and missions for millenia. Their hateful little world is so narrowly focused on their own petty local gripes (biased, politicized) against the Church that they've lost sight (if they ever had it) of the grandness and vastness of Catholicism's worldly [and otherworldy] presence, and influence.

  47. Publion says:

    As if on cue.


    I concluded my last comment by discussing the rather unimpressive quality of Abusenik material. It would almost seem as if the entire Game is being run from the cafeteria and there is no faculty involved at all.


    And then we are provided with more examples.


    From commenter Ecker on the 2nd at 454PM we get a wiggy scream. That’s the best option when there isn’t a lot of substance – just scream (using internet formatting, if you’re on the Web) and hope to move everybody beyond analysis to emotion; classic Stampede.


    Ecker is almost too wigged-out to wear a Wig because of what appears to be – and hardly unpredictably – a replay of the LA document cache-release, now taking place in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee (hereinafter: AOM).


    Ecker gives his own take on the ‘report’ he brandishes here, but oddly doesn’t give a link (in case, perhaps, his targets and victims – i.e. other readers – might actually go and read the thing for themselves). Anyhoo, the link to that article is here:




    Reading the ‘report’, you will see such bits as: the cache yields documents going back “eight decades” (thus to the first Administration of FDR); Abp. Dolan “appealed to [the] Vatican on numerous occasions”; at one point in the early 2000s he asked the Vatican for permission to transfer 57 million to a cemetery fund to protect it from the sue-the-Bishops-phase of lawsuits; the Vatican was slow to respond when the AOM asked the Vatican to remove priests; the individual file of a Fr. John O’Brien is mentioned – who had asked to be laicized in a letter from September of 2003 – and it is considered revelatory that the AOM forwarded “two more accounts of abuse” (probably in procedural support of the request – but note that “accounts of abuse”, which by this ‘report’s’ sly wording might simply mean two more stories) – and it is not until April 2009 that the priest is “removed from the priesthood” (although the ‘report’ doesn’t say when O’Brien was removed from ministry, a rather key distinction); another priest received two allegations (1961, 1983) and was given counseling and then finally sent to a nursing home where there would be no contact with minors; also that the AOM “on a regular basis requested that priests accused of abuse be laicized”; and lastly, some definitely mushy claims in the ‘report’ that priests accused of abuse and in the process of laicization “were paid $10,000 to start the process and $10,000 during the process” (plus $1,250 per month for health and dental insurance) – which, as written, clearly requires further explication.


    In short, this ‘report’ (and there are others like it if you work your search engine; PBS actually interviewed Laurie Goodstein for its coverage) throws out a lot of factoids for which no evidence is given that what we are seeing here is not largely the records of an organization (the AOM) that is subordinate to the regulations and requirements of a larger organization (the Vatican) trying to deal with the occasionally aberrant priest (going back 80 years) and – more recently – trying to navigate what we now know are the slyly treacherous complexities posed by the Abusenik Stampede and the sue-the-bishops phase inaugurated by Jeff Anderson. In short, there is nothing in this ‘report’ that establishes any of the usual Abusenik tropes and scripts (see commenter Ecker’s material here for some nifty examples of same).  


    The report also allows Jeff Anderson (representing “five hundred clients”, although whether in Milwaukee or in the old LA case is not – neatly – clear) to characterize that transfer-of-funds request as “money that was to be used ‘to pay off some of the offenders to go quietly away’” – no verification given here, from a clearly ‘interested Party’. Such a ‘report’.


    And again, we see the Abusenik tendency to use projection in painting its Cartoons of the world: Abuseniks insist that they are the ones  fully locked-into “reality” and then accuse others of “not want[-ing] to face reality”, and yet clearly they do not establish the “reality” that they claims that they can see, and that anybody who doesn’t see such “reality” must be (fill in the blank, but kindly omit expletives).


    Bolstered by the unsupported assertion that “these two authors of this article did right was to call it right” [sic]. First, these two authors rather slyly didn’t actually commit to all the elements of Ecker’s Cartoon. Second, to establish that they ‘called it right’ we would have to rule out all the numerously omitted possibilities.


    And now a new bit: “continued crimes” (not-established nor distinguished from unexamined allegations)must be blamed on the “parishioner who allows the abuse to continue” and “who is not saying enough is enough”. But a) the AOM clearly had been asking for numerous laicizations (quite possibly only on the basis of allegations, which the Vatican would be bound by canon-law to resist until full laicization procedures were completed); and b) how are parishioners themselves to determine a genuine from an other-than-genuine allegation?  And c) all of this goes back not only one or three decades (thus before the Stampede erupted in the U.S.) but eight decades, to the Great Depression if not the end of the Roaring Twenties.


    Which leads us back to the time-warp-lock dynamic: Ecker here is trying to re-establish 1985 or 1991 or 2002 – let alone 1930 or 1940 or 1950 – (each of those years becoming increasingly less connected to the actual realities of events as they have developed over those stretches of time and history).


    Thus when Ecker screams that “it’s not over!” (excessive formatting omitted) he is actually voicing a plea that Time not be allowed to move forward (a rather significant element of “reality”), but rather that Time be frozen (in, I might add, some particular moment that has proven utterly essential to some Abuseniks’ sense of self-worth and self-importance).


    But – yes – we can expect this Cache-Gambit to continue, even as it failed in LA. As dioceses/archdioceses that agree to release records continue to do so, then each such release-event will provide the opportunity for a queasy congeries of types to play the old songs and wave the old flags and placards and churn out the same old media ‘reports’. And that is what is not yet “over” and won’t be until the media start looking carefully at whatever material is in this or that cache.


    But I think that generally these Cache-Events will reveal themselves – as the LA Event did – to be the sly and desperate efforts they are and perhaps have always been.


    Thus too we may leave to hang where it was put that stentorian Wig-of-Authority order to “wake up” (excessive formatting omitted).


    And since we haven’t established the guilt of the priests (or, for that matter, the authenticity and veracity of the claims of victimization and “brutalization”) then the discourse here remains where it is. And had Ecker come up with any solution to that authenticity/veracity Problem that I asked him about a few comments back?


    Then at 812Pm on the 2nd, Ecker returns to try to establish the necessity of his (and others’ of his type) efforts. Although this effort collapses into incoherence: Abuseniks are needed because – just like Catholics – they are “a number just like you”. The only sense I can glean from this is that Abuseniks need “numbers”, but I’ve been saying that all along.


    Then a foray into his failed demands for “official excommunication” – which I have dealt with in prior comments on this site. (I had mentioned that he had to do something  specifically proscribed in order to be excommunicated because – the hot ironies – his status was protected by canonical regulation as well as by the sacramental workings of Baptism. I also noted that he might well simply be looking for another excuse to wear the Victim-Wig, perhaps with the Oppressed-Whistleblower Wig perched on top of it.


    And in fact I would say that we recently saw another stab at that taken during the recent denial-of-Communion flap, where persons tried to receive Communion wearing various bits of costumery designed to create a public media-event – an incident which instantly attracted Ecker’s attentions, as we have seen in his comments about it on this site).


    And again, the sly conflation of accused-priests and the (queasily suggestive) reference to “any clergy member who harms a child” – although just how many actual and genuine cases of that type of thing is a fact that has never been reliably determined.


    And somehow this all validates and justifies his (and others’) efforts to “denounce the teachings of the catholic church”.


    Ecker then crowns himself with the Wig of Concern, on the authority of which he declaims (ex Wigedra, if I deploy a Latin neologism) that Catholic parishioners are “just as dangerous to children as those who physically harm children”. The Wig has spoken; shame on those who think ill of it.


    The whole presentation then topped off with the Wig of Dedicated and Essential Mission: why don’t all the Catholics just “step aside to let me do what I have to do”? Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that Ecker and others of his ilk do indeed “need to” do all this stuff that we see in their material here. But again, I would strongly suggest that they examine just precisely what are the operative dynamics driving that “need”.


    And finally, at 1236PM on the 3rd, there returns Learned-Counsel – last seen not-answering my question as to examining his own sense of the significance of my Flight-School analogy, the one that – I have said – is vitally significant (although, alas, in a negative way) for his philosophical position. Apparently we are not supposed to be intelligent enough to remember prior comments; he starts up here de novo with material that has nothing to do with that question he has not-answered. Perhaps at Harvard all those elite professors of Philosophy didn’t really track the integrity and coherence of their students’ positions over the course of a semester or an academic year – so that a student could just ‘forget’ the problematical bits in his/her position and – like Abuseniks – just come up with new steaming piles to submit as if they had created no personal history of submissions at all. Or perhaps there were no Harvard professors involved at all.


    He is on about Kevin Clash – although I had not mentioned that case in any comments. (And nicely copies my “ovvvvvvv courssssssse” styling – although I have often said that mere mimicry of phrasing does not constitute any further competence than imitation.


    Somehow he is trying to connect “revolution” and “secular communist ideals” and Kevin Clash. Now that would be an interesting project, but – ovvvvv coursssse – Learned Counsel doesn’t do projects because he doesn’t need to impress us with his knowledge. Ovvvvvvv coursssssse.


    I would like to know just what “we know so much more” of at this point (emphasis on know), and how that specifically ties into the Catholic Abuse Matter. Or is he implying somehow that there is child-abuse (however defined) just about everywhere? And what does he see are the sequelae of that knowledge? Especially, perhaps, in regard to the Catholic Abuse Matter.


    And – he clearly reads other comments as little as he maintains a grasp on the track of his own material – he seeks – as Abuseniks so often do – to conflate the knowledge of the popular forum and the knowledge of the legal forum: that is to say, it’s one thing to ‘know’ through some intuitive personal decision to believe, and another very different thing to establish in the legal form the verifiable reality that justifies the deployment of the Sovereign Coercive Authority of the government against an accused (we recall that LC is also a practicing and trained attorney, of course; but maybe they didn’t teach philosophy-of-law at his law  school).


    And he will use the same personal “reason” that he claims to have been taught how to deploy at Harvard (see prior comments between myself and LC). This is precisely what Robert Bolt was getting at when – in the book and film-script of A Man for All Seasons – he has Thomas More say to the Court: “The world must construe according to its wits; this Court must construe according to the Law”.


    And we are also reminded here of a recent JR submission that about telling “my truth” (italics mine). This may also be on a 3×5 card about Samuel Beckett and that gentleman’s assertion that “I believe it because it is my belief” (italics mine).


    But clearly, if everyone has their own believed version of reality, then there can be no reality. Is this news to LC? And while a culture or civilization or society can handle a certain amount of such solipsistic my-belief type of thing, yet the whole commonweal will be fundamentally undermined if there is no common-belief whatsoever, or if one’s own personal my-belief beliefs trump any larger consensus.


    And if ‘belief’ is somehow cut-loose from any coherent and comprehensive discipline of con-forming to reality – and if instead it is claimed that the only reality is whatever ‘reality’ individual humans form for themselves individually.


    Yet it would make for a nifty ‘philosophical’ consolation for persons concocting allegations: what I claim is really and actually true because it is ‘my truth’. You see where this type of thing can go.


    But perhaps these matters are not covered in the Harvard curriculum and course syllabi. Presuming LC actually went there and graduated as he claims (and in the modern Colonel-Klink world, who is to say for certain?)


    So while LC is correct that this particular Clash case is “a secular matter” and I needn’t involve myself in it (and I haven’t kept on it in the news), yet the philosophical implications are – as always – of concern to me, especially since those implications are vital to the Catholic Abuse Matter and the Stampede.


    As for his ketchup-stained thought about the Milwaukee document dump, I have dealt with it above.


    Still waiting for his work-up of the Flight-School analogy.

  48. jim robertson says:

    [edited by moderator]

    No one will ever trust the church again.

    The Catholic Church is Satan; as it has been for 2000 years. Ask anyone who's ever gone against it's "wishes".

  49. Delphin says:

    Looks like we've been subjected to another "drive-by" verbal barrage. And, a contribution of "stuff" so original, profound and responsive, just full of …..revelation.

    That was a way too-brief sabbatical.

    Why don't the haters put their theory, that we only thrive on these sites because of their "contributions", to test. You need to run the experiment longer than a few days, perhaps weeks or months for a good sample size.

    Addiction to hate is the most powerful and destructive addiction of all. And, hate is Satan, which is the opposite of Love, who is God.


  50. dennis ecker says:

    Has anyone taken notice that when the truth is told Publion's comments get longer and longer.

    When he is told that its not over, and more facts are presented to prove it. He makes the statement "Thus when Ecker screams that “it’s not over!” (excessive formatting omitted) he is actually voicing a plea that Time not be allowed to move forward."

    So please tell us Publion how much time does the RC need to move forward ? Years, Decades, a century.

    Sorry Pablion "TIME IS UP" When the catholic church continues to bury itself I will make sure those who feel the church is now warm and fuzzy are told the truth.

    I hope I'm wrong but your church is nothing more than a cancer that is in remission.



  1. [...] About Contraception? – Bra. Millegan Scotch Review: Peat Monster – Whiskey Catholic Hollywood Awards Child Abuser 3 Emmys; Media Silent – The Media Report Catholic Ecologist: Obama’s Climate-Change Plan Hypocritical – [...]