‘I’m Not Listening!’: Mainstream Media Ignores Current Epidemic of Abuse in Evangelical Church, Instead Focuses on Stale Claims in Catholic Church

media cover its ears

Plugging their ears: The mainstream media goes silent to the claim that sex abuse
is actually "worse" in a place that's not the Catholic Church

Just last week, Boz Tchividjian, a prominent Liberty University law professor and the grandson of Billy Graham, stood before a roomful of journalists and declared that Evangelical missions are a "magnet" for sexual abusers and that Evangelicals "are worse" than the Catholic Church at handling the problem.

Speaking to the annual gathering of the Religion Newswriters Association (RNA) in Austin, Texas, Tchividjian said that Evangelicals have "sacrificed the souls" of innocent children, and of known data from abuse cases, a shocking 25 percent are repeat cases, he claimed.

Tchividjian is also the executive director of an organization called Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment (GRACE), which works on combating abuse in the Evangelical community.

Last summer, GRACE spearheaded an online petition condemning the "silence" and "inattention" to sex abuse in Evangelical organizations, especially its missions.

Where are you, mainstream media?

Laurie Goodstein

Missing in action again:
The NY Times' Laurie Goodstein

Despite reporting saying that Tchividjian made his remarks to a "roomful of journalists," not a single major American media outlet reported Tchividjian's eye-opening and shocking claims. (Update: As this post was going to publication, we saw that Huffington Post did indeed post a story about Tchividjian's claims.)

The story has been picked up by a handful of Catholic sites and a few other religion blogs, and all of them appear to point to the story written by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at Religion News Service, who attended the RNA conference. Bravo to Ms. Pulliam Bailey for her reporting.

And, once again, the New York Times's National Religion Correspondent, Laurie Goodstein is nowhere to be found on this compelling story. Goodstein appears to be an award-winning member of the RNA, but apparently she either did not attend the conference, or she did not find Tchividjian's remarks worth reporting.

As we recently reported, nearly one out of every four articles that Goodstein has published in the last three years has trumpeted specifically the issue of sex abuse in the Catholic Church.

Could it be that Goodstein is deliberately ignoring Tchividjian's eye-opener because it would undermine the implicit premise pounded into her reporting that sex abuse is primarily a Catholic problem?

The double standard rolls along.

[ADDENDUM, 10/4/13, 9:45am: Sarah Pulliam Bailey notes in the comments that Goodstein actually hosted the panel at the RNA at which Tchividjian made his remarks. Commonweal's Grant Gallicho, who identifies himself as "Catholic" yet has falsely smeared this site and this post on Twitter, claims that Goodstein actually "convened" the RNA panel.

Both observations actually bolster our original assessment! We specifically wrote, "[A]pparently [Goodstein] either did not attend the conference, or she did not find Tchividjian's remarks worth reporting."

In other words, our original estimation was entirely correct! Goodstein was actually present at the panel and personally heard Tchividjian's eye-opening remarks, yet she did not print a single syllable about it in the Times!

A few years ago, we praised Grant Gallicho for his critique of the slanted film, Deliver Us From Evil. Since then, however, it seems he has taken a new position as Laurie Goodstein's waterboy. And it also appears that the installation and influence of Pope Francis has had no effect on him taking to the Internet and lying about this site and this post. That's pretty sad.]


  1. Publion says:

    Well, JR has had a busy day – at least in the tap-tappy sense.


    At 120PM on the 8th he simply gives us his usual stuff that he doth “know it’s a fraud” and so on. He has now also adopted the ‘dennis ecker’ online ‘shouting’ format (always a giveaway that they are shouting because the material itself won’t command much otherwise).


    Then he reasons to the effect that SNAP couldn’t be an actual anti-Church (or pro-‘victim’) organization because it has such unimpressive leadership. But that’s hardly the only possible explanation for its admittedly unimpressive leadership. It is certainly possible that since those special interests behind the Stampede merely needed a ‘front’, then they really didn’t need or want (and perhaps couldn’t attract the services of) anyone more competent and independent for the tasks required.


    It is also certainly possible that there hasn’t been a larger and more effectively organized link-up of genuine victims because there are so few of them ‘out there’in the first place. And JR certainly hasn’t tried to do anything with such resources as are available to him; and ‘dennis ecker’s leadership (as it were) appears to be somewhat a creature of his own mind, plastered up on that little screen behind his eyeballs.


    Then at 518PM on the 8th JR gives the Game away: “Respite from pain is very important … how you get there not as important”. Charming. Except b) there is the fact that “pain” – by the most amazing coincidence – is a form of ‘spectral evidence’ in the sense that nobody else can see it and everybody theoretically must simply accept the report of the person claiming to be in pain. And a) that “how you get there” which is “not as important” … would that not include stretching truth or creating the category of “my truth” as distinct from truth itself? Then ‘getting there’ would be more than half the fun.


    JR reports as fact that “Dennis has not been compensated”. He knows that because … and here we are back to square-one again. And why on earth ask me to “do something about that”? How actually prove that he is a genuine victim rather than a victim otherwise-classifiable? Especially after the material we have seen here.


    He then – marvelously – asks me “where are all your followers?” – which reveals nothing so much as his own conception of what putting material up here is all about: to get “followers”. That’s the Abusenik objective: gain as many “followers” – i.e. those who buy the stories – as you can. And thus you ‘win’, apparently. I’m not looking for “followers”; I put up my thoughts and readers can judge for themselves and do with the material what they wish. I have no psychic or PR-strategy need for “followers”. But apparently JR does. And thus imagines – so very characteristically – that everybody else does too.


    Then in regard to 658PM on the 8th: Apparently JR hadn’t read or had forgotten that the Pope was in a Vatican (109 acres) surrounded by the Italian Fascist regime (until mid-1943) and then by the Nazis themselves thereafter. Or did he read it and put up his plop anyway?


    As to the bit that a) “the pope was bigger than Germany” because b) “he led 1/3 of the world’s population at that time to Germany’s 55 million”, one simply has to accept that matters have gone down the rabbit hole here.


    Specifically: in regard to (a): what on earth does “bigger than” mean in this context? That the Pope had a bigger army? That he was an even more violent and insane war-monger than Hitler? It is even questionable whether during the war more people recognized his photo rather than Hitler’s.


    And in regard to (b): what does “led” mean in this context? Could the Pope enlist or draft Catholics into a massive Vatican armed force that could steamroller across Europe and occupy all Europe from the North Cape down and across to North Africa? Could the Pope command the industrial resources of any nation and people to support such an armed enterprise?


    We have seen even on this site the inefficacy of rationality on the rather unwell. So what could papal exhortations do against Hitler’s violent lunacy?


    And before lecturing on “moral duty” and making his little Ex Wiggedra prouncements, he is going to have to explain how he handles the complex moral calculus and the difficult variables I outlined in a prior comment on this thread.


    And – does he not read? – the key problem wasn’t the Pope’s own death; the key problem was the very probable death of all those hostage-citizenries whom the various regimes could torture or kill with impunity. How does his moral theorizing deal with that?


    Thus in addition to “asses”, JR should spend less time thinking about “balls” and give more thought to the substance of the issues that are being discussed. If he can.


    At 554PM on the 8th he continues to put up his same stuff as if he hadn’t read any of the problems pointed out with his material. To repeat: What is meant by “catholic countries”? And in what ways could the Pope urge Catholics to somehow ‘rise up’ without condemning them to their own deaths at the hands of the regimes’ forces? And what – exactly – could he have ‘said’ that would have had any impact on the course of The Final Solution? After Stalingrad the German people realized that for better or worse they were all in it together with Hitler and that it was “total war” or annihilation by the Soviets; the Poles tried to rise-up and were crushed.  Why doesn’t JR make up the speech he imagines that the Pope should have made (making-up stuff shouldn’t be too much of a task)? Then we can all see what the Pope did wrong and JR would have done right.


    And the sly bit now that “the camps happened” in “catholic countries”. So if something ‘happens’ in a country, then that means … what, exactly? And given that the camps were set-up in countries by the fiat of the Nazi regime, just what does that “happened” mean here? And – again – what does “catholic country” mean in this context?


    And then and then and then, the repellently ignorant remark: “If you think the nazi’s were that hard to beat, how come after D day it only took 10 months, give or take a few, to end the war”. The US Army suffered its worst European losses in the Hurtgen Forest (clearly if he was counting the days until he could get out, sitting on his own tent-pegs in the Canal Zone, JR didn’t bother reading up on Army history). And had the massive Soviet forces not been fighting their way across from the Eastern Front, D-Day would most likely not have succeeded strategically.


    By later 1945, Stalin was not in a position to attack his own people as he had in the years before the war. He had had to ease up on the killing in order to mobilize the people for The Great Patriotic War and then he had to somehow try to keep them mobilized for the Cold War (which almost until he died was imagined to be another large-scale conventional war). History and human events don’t stand still, even for dictators.


    And the Pope was a shrewd enough observer of events to realize that, and also to realize that with Hitler beaten, the wartime alliance of the West and the USSR was going to fall apart. The situation the Vatican faced in later 1945 (after V-E Day) was not the same as it had to face from 1933 to early 1945. What could be done in later 1945 in regard to the Soviets could not have been done against the Axis regimes prior to that.


    As for JR’s (or – face it – Deschner’s) ideas about why the Second Front was opened, let him explain those thoughts if he can. But what they have to do with the Pope and the Vatican is completely obscure here and that failure of clear-thinking is reflected in his comment in the conceptual disconnect between that sentence and the sentence before it. JR  (or – face it – Deschner) goes along with the Soviet interpretation of why the Second Front was opened. Well, it is what it is. What cost whom those twenty million lives? Which twenty million lives is he talking about here (clearly he only copied down the numbers on his 3×5 cards and not the rationale or explanation behind the numbers).


    And at 627PM on the 8th he shifts gears and gives us once again the What-Will-Make-You-Happy line in regard to “victims” (no distinction between i) genuine and ii) those otherwise classifiable; and no doubt he includes himself as a ‘victim’ – on the basis of the material and the story he has claimed here on this site).


    Well – and again – I respond: What I want is some verifiable truth of the core visions propounded by the Stampede. But as is evident from all the material on this site, I think the possibility of obtaining that is very very slim. Because there was not so much verifiable truth to begin with, and the way the Anderson strategies were specifically tailored was such as to compensate for that distasteful reality, and by this point such people as were “compensated” are now in no position to want any truth to be coming out. (Which is another reason why we haven’t seen the extensive network of ‘victims’ that JR goes on about; having banked the swag, there are a lot of people who aren’t interested in any closer looks at anything.)


    I would also say that before collectively donning the Wig of Helpless Innocence as to ‘pretending’ that it “didn’t happen” (or the more stylish “pretend we didn’t happen”), JR and his ilk must deal with the fact of how much was pretended to have happened.  But as I said, I doubt there will be much of a groundswell.


    And also: JR is in no position to try to shift the discussion to some globalized concern for all victims (such as they might or might not be) since he has enough trouble on his hands with his own claims and stories. Again, this is a sly move to try to hide behind some imagined generality of victims in order to distract from the substantive implausibility of his own claims to victim-ness. And once again, we are back to the hall of mirrors that has constituted so very much of the Stampede from the beginning.


    Thus we can just leave that concluding Eckerian Wig-Scream right up there where JR put it.


    This wasn’t the way it was supposed to happen, I imagine. The Abuseniks would have polished up their stories (with the torties’ expert assistance), the Stampede would neutralize any doubts or questions, the complexly-structured cases would be settled out of court, the swag would be banked (by allegants and torties), and that would be that – unless a few die-hards decided to try and Keep The Ball Rolling for themselves by claiming that the simple fact of settlements proved and justified all of their allegations and stories.


    But alas, History and the flow of human events don’t work that way; they won’t simply stand still like the background in a Cartoon while the main characters romp and cavort. And now we can see that the Abusenik Playbook has run into situations that it had presumed would never happen. Sort of like Hitler after Stalingrad. There’s a moral in there somewhere.

  2. delphin says:

    "Dennis has not been compensated . Why don't you do something about that?"

    I was sexually abused by PFD members when I was a child, there were massive coverups that go all the way up to city hall, and the abuse of children is still ongoing.

    I want compensation. I want it now.

    Why don't you do something about 'that'?


    • dennis ecker says:

      You try to be civil and you get comment like this from a donkey. (do not wish to be edited)

      With those educated comments we see from Delphin and Publion I truly am worried how these two individuals will react if the conviction of Lynn is upheld. We can see the three judge panel is in no hurry to make a ruling.

      I hope he gets released since I hear he is wasting away. The last thing I want to see is him become a martyr.

  3. Jim Robertson says:

    I don't know what PFD is? D.

    If you were hurt as a child, that could explain a lot of your anger.

    If you were hurt sexually. I am truely sorry that happened to you.

    If this is more of your bitter "humor". I'm sorry about that for you as well.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The penny dropped. It was bitter humor. I still would like to know, for your sake, what's all that anger about? You can be angry, that's up to you but it's much deeper than merited by these conversations.

  4. Publion says:

    More review here. A pre-note or two before I begin. First, we now have two issues going on this thread: a) the Catholic Abuse material and then b) the historical material about the Vatican and the Holocaust etc.


    To repeat what I have said before on this thread, but also to address some thoughts that at least one commenter expressed quite a while ago: I keep up with the material that goes up because I think both topics (a) and (b) are valuable and any Catholic or non-Catholic reader might find something useful in a discussion of them.


    Second, that commenter a while back also expressed some concern about spending so much time and energy with the material of certain other commenters, which he didn’t seem to see as worthwhile. As I responded to him then: it’s not so much a matter of getting down into the mud with any particular individuals, which indeed would not be a worthwhile use of time and energy (nor would it be congruent with the purpose of this site as I understand it).


    But there were two reasons for keeping on their material that struck me (and still strike me) as valid: a) the material they put up is so very typical of both the content and the style of much Abusenik and Stampede praxis that it would be well worth the time to demonstrate what we were seeing in the comments that were put up; and b) such exchanges (one wouldn’t want to go so far as to call them ‘discussions’) opened up the opportunity for developing a wider-ranging focus and view of the various topics, thus getting us beyond the lock-step and lock-box of the usual and now long-established Stampede Spin and its Talking-Points.


    Third, I try to follow along with comments chronologically, but for whatever reasons sometimes (as we will see here below) some comments get missed or go up out of chronological order. That’s why I try to always give the date-time stamp now, so readers can refer back to the actual comment to which I am referring.


    With all that said, let’s get to it.


    JR (the 8th, 102PM) now seems to think we have forgotten the JR/Ecker post (does he really think we are that dumb or is it that he is and presumes – characteristically – that we are too?).


    We recall that a post went up from JR that began by addressing “Dennis”. There then went up a series of three further JR submissions with links that ‘Dennis’ wanted us to see. There then followed a series of excuses as to whether JR was putting up his own material (especially in the first one) or whether he was addressing “Dennis” or whether – the whackiest one – “Dennis” was talking to himself by addressing a comment to himself which JR merely put up under his own name.


    My general point in response was that none of their excuses i) made any sense individually nor ii) could cohere when taken together as a group, thus leading to some suspicion as to either their cognitive competence or their honesty or both. The issues were never resolved, and the matter faded until the 8th, when it returns to us.


    At this point, JR seems to recall only the link-postings and not the original long comment that began by addressing “Dennis”. If JR is either i) so impaired as to not recall the matter accurately (yet he himself raises it again here) or is ii) so inaccurate in his presentation to us here now, then it goes to just how reliably veracious his material is.


    Thus his “desperate” and “neurosis” bits can be left hanging unsupported where they were put. Although I do note again that both ‘dennis ecker’ and JR have now gotten comfortable with the Wig of Diagnosis and I expect we shall see it trotted out in further performances. It is what it is.


    But I also note that on a number of sites such assertions and claims and gambits would simply be accepted, more or less, and left unchallenged to become thus a part of the record. It has always been my thought that such material – as trivial or obvious as it may be – should not be left unchallenged but rather should be addressed. Otherwise the impression could be formed that since it was unchallenged then it was valid, true, accurate, and so on. (We have seen precisely this dynamic in operation in regard to the ‘settlements’ paid by the Church – as a result of the cumulative Anderson Strategies (media-alliance and multiple-plaintiff) and other Stampede Playbook bits: the allegations went unchallenged and some now claim that the very lack of challenge ‘proves’ that the (or their own) allegations were all true and that the Church ‘admitted’ all that simply by settling the cases.) But, again, when I keep up with the material of some commenters, it is for this purpose, and not to participate in some of those internet mud-fights which can be so often found out there in the webverse.


    Also: the “please” that begins the comment is so neatly the Wig of Exasperated Integrity.


    Then (the 8th, 141PM) JR goes back to the military-career military. I won’t get into his issues with ‘Delphin’ since ‘Delphin seems quite capable of handling exchanges with JR.


    JR claims to have been both a Vietnam-era “draftee” who yet merely “counted the days until” he could “get out” who also performed so very well that he was promoted 5 or so grades in rank in the two years. Which seems a bit much, although I have granted that during the Vietnam War era the Army organization was not operating at its optimum levels. He now reports – as I had imagined in a recent comment on this thread – that he was in some sort of admin support service position, a passport clerk. In his initial comment about all this he referenced a unit that actually did not exist at the time he said he was in the Zone since it was not ‘stood up’ – as they say – as an organizational entity until the mid-1980s. He reports he was “in charge”, yet he only earned the GCM, which is one of those I-was-there-and-breathing awards at the opposite end of the list from, say, the Medal of Honor; his service, apparently, did not strike his superiors as meriting any further official award.


    Thus the “being wrong” and the “sociopath” diagnosis can be left up there to twist in the wind where they were put. If JR can quote any of my materially (accurately, please) where I have been “wrong” about his claims then he is welcome to put them up here. If he cares to sufficiently explain how he has reached his diagnosis of “sociopath” … well, wouldn’t that be interesting? He is welcome to speculate about my psychology, and I promise I will not – in response – claim to feel victimized or insulted.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      P. You've been wrong about my personal sex abuse. Completely so. You've been wrong about "miracles" at Lourdes and you've been wrong about the catholic run rat lines that got Mengele and other Nazis to South America and other countries. You've been wrong about the church's connection to Facism period. Believe me I know there were many multitudes in fact of priests and nuns who did the right things in the Holocaust but there were plenty who took the facist side.

      It seems to me that the church like any other multinational corporation had to play both sides in WW2 for it's own corporate interests. The difference between the church and other multinationals was the church sold morality as it's product or at least the "illusion" of morality. Facists were and are completely immoral. What to do? The church played both sides.

      But according to Pacelli's description of Jews in 1938, (They, the Jews)"who's lip's curse (Christ) and whose hearts reject him everyday.",  He wasn't exactly eccuminical in that statement in Hungary, now was he?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I'm very sorry you seem to be wearing blinders.

      And obviously you were never a 19 year old draftee taken from your home and forced to serve against your will during the Viet Nam war. I was.I know how we draftee's felt. I knowhow the non-lifer enlisted men felt. I heard it everyday for 2 years. I was one.

      Army Headquarters was at Ft. Amador. I was at Ft. Amador…..

      Dear jesus enough! .

      Are there no fair minded catholics here that can explain to P that all I offered was a link to Dennis? Christ, this is such tom fool crap. If you were right about me forging anything I would say so. You're WRONG. Somebody else tell him PLEASE.  [edited by moderator]

    • Jim Robertson says:

      And obviously you were never stationed in a Military headquarters. Or you would know that at the top you get promoted faster. Particularly if you are good at your job. Which I was.

      If I wasn't where I said I was when i said I was. please explain to my daughter how she came into existence since according to you I was never there. She could be the first female produced by an Immaculate  Conception.

  5. Jim Robertson says:

    I've never said this before or wished what happened to me on anyone.

    But I sure wish it would have happened to the people who think they know about the subject who post here.

    P I so sincerely wish it had happened to you instead of me. I really do.

    I wish it would have happened to D instead of me.

    That's something I've not done before. Wish the worst for another person. But you've made a change in me with your insanity.

    So here's my wish for you, that what happened to me happens to you or someone you "love". Then and only then might you understand.


  6. Publion says:

    And now comes ‘dennis ecker’ (the 8th, 1018PM) telling me that from his reading of one of my comments I “contradict” myself. 

    Do I?

    Astoundingly (or maybe not) he mistakes my quotation of his own material as if it were my own. And on that basis then takes my own actual statement as if it contradicts the quotation of what is actually his own material. Which it most surely does and was intended to do. I contradict him, not myself. 

    One can only think here of Charlie Brown: “Good grief.” And this mind is supposed to have been formally trained in competent medical diagnosis and reporting? Clearly, a Wig can only provide the semblance, appearance, or simulacrum of competence, but not that actual competence itself. Perhaps others, from time to time in his various adventures, had realized that same thing. 

    And then a conclusion that infers something that I imagine connects me to Ralph Cipriano on the Big Trial site. Mr. Cipriano is perfectly capable of handling comments on his own site (and has been doing quite a job with (or ‘on’) ‘dennis ecker’). I wish Mr. Cipriano continued success. 

    • Publion says:

      And (the 8th, 108PM) he says that “the pope could have done any of those things you mentioned”: which of “those things” that I mentioned? Is he simply being incompetently vague here, or does he realize that if he actually tried to spell out precisely what the Pope might have done, then he would expose the silliness of his recommendations? He then adds a further nail to the coffin here by continuing with “Something. Anything, to show he loved his neighbor as himself”. But none of this addresses the complex moral calculus facing Pius XII during the war years (which I had discussed at some length on this very thread) and thus the Scriptural bit is left more as an unsupported insinuation rather than as formal support for an established and demonstrated claim. 

      And then – both he and ‘dennis ecker’ are also now enamored of their new Wigs of Fact – that “the facts show he did not”. What the historical facts show is that the Pope did not make too many overt and acute and direct public statements about the militantly violent regimes, already at war, which both surrounded the Vatican totally and also held-hostage so many people (Catholic and non-Catholic) in the countries under their control. Nor does he seem to have addressed the issues I raised as to the usefulness of any such overt and acute public statements nor the very probable consequences of making them. Nor that none of the Allied governments made no such statements either, although Churchill was apparently advised and had privately expressed shock and outrage to his advisers – but there was, Churchill realized, nothing that could be done until the Allies had actually gotten ground-forces close enough to the camps to liberate them. (Even if the camps could have been attacked – given their remote locations in Central and Eastern Europe – there was no guarantee that the guard force would not have massacred the inmates or that the attacking force could have maintained its position even if it had managed to defeat the local guard force, nor could the inmates have been extracted from such remote locations deep in enemy teritory. Such vital and substantive military considerations are apparently beyond the ken of a passport clerk, rapidly-promoted or not.)

      Thus then JR’s “something-anything” bit is left to hang twisting up there where it was put, to demonstrate how little he (and – let’s face it – Deschner) grasps the essential nature of the relevant actualities. So much, then, for the use of ‘factioids’ when you don’t have a sufficient grasp of the ‘facts’. “Dennis” is invited to take note, as well.

      I also point out here that JR has – as I have previously said in comments on this thread – latched onto a mind like unto his own (Deschner’s) although Deschner has a larger collection of 3x5s and factoids. This has led him in very recent comments on this thread into Deschner’s Soviet-inspired position about various aspects of the war, which position reflects nicely Deschner’s conceptual home in the postwar Soviet effort to cast aspersions on the Pope and the Church after Pius XII’s very public and acute critical statements about the threat and the nature of the Soviet regime and its implications for the West and for Europe. 

      Such are the adventures of historical study and assessment. 

      Then (the 8th, 835PM) JR somehow confuses the Concordat with the fact that Hitler “wanted to kill the Jews”. The Concordat – the text of which I have provided in a link in an earlier comment – had to do with the preservation of Catholic education. 

      And while Hitler’s insane anti-Semitic ideas were clear as early as the publication of Mein Kampf and in his numerous public statements long before he took power as Chancellor, nobody ever imagined that he could or would actually come up with The Final Solution and the Holocaust. Such a premeditated act of (attempted) genocide was literally inconceivable to any political leaders; that any leader of any 20th century government in Europe would even consider such a plan simply did not appear possible to anybody (including FDR and Churchill; Stalin might have appreciated the brutal genius of it, since he was into the liquidation business himself in a very big way – but of course this is not an aspect of things that Deschner would consider worth going-into).  Nor – militarily – did anybody seriously imagine that as the war closed in on him Hitler would insist on the continued diversion of substantial amounts of transport resources to The Final Solution when there were so many urgent military requirements for those same transport and material and personnel resources. 

      And I also note that Italy, even under Mussolini, had no camps and among the European countries involved in the war, registered one of the lowest numbers of its Jewish citizens lost to Nazi racial policies and murders. And the hugely conservative and tradition-based dictatorships in heavily-Catholic Spain and Portugal did not participate at all. (Even though Spain – going back to its own Inquisition (which was an instrument set up by the Spanish monarchy’s government, and was not a part-of nor subject-to the Roman Inquisition set up by the Vatican back in the day) – had its own difficult history with its treatment of the its Jewish subjects.) Austria did not compile so impressive a record, although many of its citizens considered themselves to be ‘German’ and ‘Aryan’ and not even Schuschnigg, the traditionalist Catholic Chancellor (after the Nazis assassinated Dollfuss in 1934) could stop the Austrian citizenry’s stampede to be included in the Reich. 

      But perhaps JR – and Deschner – knew all this already. 

      And then JR brings up appeasement. Which goes back beyond the beginning of the Final Solution to the pre-war ‘30s. One can – and many historians do – go back and forth on the wisdom of that policy in regard to Hitler, but since the Western governments themselves had not come up with a workable solution to the problems Hitler posed after his accession in January, 1933, what does he imagine that the Pope could effectively do? But then in 1937 Pius XI issued Mit Brennender Sorge, actually writing it in German rather than Latin, then secretly getting its text into Germany and ordering it to be read from every pulpit at Sunday Mass. Then-Cardinal Pacelli was ordered to inform the ranking prelate of Germany that there was to be absolutely no hesitation or excuses for not-reading the Papal encyclical. 

      Hitler considered it a challenge to battle issued by the Church against the Reich and vowed revenge, sending the Gestapo out into every diocesan office in the Reich to confiscate all copies. 

      And – by the by – it was very soon after that when the Nazis began the Koblenz prosecutions of 170 monks for child-sex-abuse and homosexuality and “corrupting youth”, ordering that the trials be staged with the maximum of publicity. There is a cartoon of the era, drawn by SS artists, showing a bald prelate in a full cope-like robe, and under the fringes of the robe are various sets of feet: a woman’s in high-heels, and several sets of smaller and bare feet (children, male or female, would be the inference); in the background a German civil policeman looks on with arms calmly folded behind his back (the inference being that such infamy required the attention of the SS and the Gestapo rather than the local civil police). My, my, how history repeats itself. (The cartoon is reproduced in Michael Burleigh’s 2007 book Sacred Causes, on an un-numbered page in the ‘illustrations’ section of the book.) 

      So the capacity of secularist or anti-religious governments to take revenge on the Church for standing in the way of their plans, purposes, and programs certainly has a pedigree, doesn’t it? 

      So then, the bit about my needing to “read the one book they’ve written about their beliefs” is outdistanced by the further considerations that I have already made above. It wasn’t that Hitler wrote all those things and then publicly spoke about them; it was that he was crazy enough yet capable enough to find his way to the Chancellorship (through the witless scheming of the Weimar government elites) and actually could and did put his awesomely insane (but hardly unique) crack-dreams into full and relentless practice, even in the teeth of impending military catastrophe. 

      As early as Hitler’s attempted putsch in Munich Cardinal Faulhaber had delivered a scathing address from the pulpit denouncing Nazi Brownshirt persecution of the Jews (such as it was at that early date in the Nazis’ career) and had sent and published a formal Letter to the then-Chancellor of the Reich doing the same. The Nazi response was to blame him for the failure of the putsch. College students were incited to denounce the Pope and the Church in staged demonstrations. Then-Cardinal Pacelli, as Nuncio to Bavaria, reported all of this to Rome and was instrumental in Pius XI’s 1928 condemnation – issued through the Holy Office – of “that hate which is now generally called anti-Semitism”. And then, in an audience given to the British representative to the Holy See, Pius XI told that diplomat in no uncertain terms what he thought of “Hitler’s persecution of the Jews” (as it then existed). But the British did nothing substantive and what then was the Vatican to do? 

      Nor could the German hierarchy, which continued to warn priests and parishioners away from Nazism, stem the building German popular tide toward the seductive promises and the exciting vitriol spewed by the Nazis. 

      And Hitler did lose the election in 1932. But then the Weimar elites invited him to take the Chancellorship anyway (because they feared that his still-considerable popularity, coupled with the Nazis’ demonstrated ability to intimidate with violence when they couldn’t get what they wanted through elections, would tear Germany apart). And the rest is what it is. 

      But maybe JR and Deschner knew all this already. 

      I would also note, since JR raised the point about reading Mein Kampf that in that text Hitler rather precisely outlines the type of propaganda and public-opinion manipulation techniques that – by the most amazing coincidence – reflect rather nicely indeed the Stampede’s own dynamics in our own era. Yes, JR should certainly read the book. 

      Then (the 8th, 1138PM) JR claims that I’ve “never hear the political line that goes ‘The people united can never be defeated’”. He refers, I presume, to that Chilean revolutionary song of the mid-1970s. What’s the point in the reference here?

      Apparently JR thinks that the Church could command and control a revolution against the Nazis at some point. When? While there was a functioning government at Weimar? After Hitler’s accession in 1933? At some later point? And create what would have had to have become a German civil war?  This is a crack-dream. 

      The Church was to force the “very catholic bankers and industrialists who supported him” to back off when – after 1929 – he offered the only apparently workable promise of a German financial recovery (already reeling from the hyper-inflation of the early 1920s)? And what of the very very Protestant bankers and industrialists who formed the basis of the Prussian ruling elite? Is he under the delusional impression that Germany in that era was a primarily Catholic country? Or that the Nazis would just sit back and follow the rules of non-violent democratic process? 

      Then the JR retreat into snark – in this context witless and juvenile. One has only to consider the record of the very few German resisters and their quick fate. 

      And then the high-ground Wig of Dignified Idealism: “If good men do nothing in the face of evil, what are they good for?” As he apparently didn’t know – but as I trust I have demonstrated in this comment – the Church did as much as it dared in the face of a type of unrestrained anti-political violence that would stop at nothing and in the face of a national citizenry that in its economic and psychic degradation was desperate for the salvation (as it were) promised by the Nazis. And at that time all Western governments considered the developments in Germany to be ‘internal matters’. 

      In the face of all this, JR and Deschner can offer nothing except JR’s snark and Deschner’s highly-selective recounting of factoids. Phooey. Phooey and baloney. 

      And then (the 8th, 1147PM) JR observes that I “seem to like to put men in wigs”. Actually I think some men really like to wear the things. And where does he stand with his “balls” and “asses” predilection? I expect, meanwhile, that I have managed to raise the level of the “converse” here. Let’s see if he can rise to it. 

    • dennis ecker says:

      Another bleeding heart proved wrong

  7. Jim Robertson says:

    This is a church which in my childhood, ran the movie game in Hollywood. The legion of decency had such extraordinary power that they could control what could be said or done in films.

    As an example: Tennessee Williams' Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

    Whole speeches and ideas were eliminated because of catholic power. When Big Daddy talks about the gay couple he got his land from. Gone.  Skipper's suicide was not over unrequited love for Maggie the Cat but for Brick. All changed to suit the clerical "no neck monsters" of catholic film land. That was the power you had. You don't have that any more. You are no longer considered a model for morality. Just the opposite. Why you ever were, with your history, I don't know. You used to be the standard for political correctness. That standard has shifted. I 'm sure you loathe where it's moved to. What with people of my "ilk" standing up for ourselves as compared to being judged by hypocrites like you. Look to yourself. What" ilk" do you call home?

  8. Jim Robertson says:

    Is everything a facade with you? Is that why you treat people like we are all fakes? That seems to be your outlook. I think your projecting your own feelings about yourself onto everybody else.

    What are you being fake about? Since you see fakery every where in this scandal but in the one place it is most apparent: The church.( Remember the shroud of Turin?)

  9. delphin says:

    "P I so sincerely wish it had happened to you instead of me. I really do.

    I wish it would have happened to D instead of me."

    Some more of that lefty-love spilling out all over the place; just like all of the other commie/atheist 'love in's'.

    Anyway, what exactly is "IT"?

    Is "IT" a lustful look or gesture, perhaps a brush or tickle, an off-color joke, maybe a grope or grab while rough-housing, who knows?

    What we do know is that priests, or brothers….whatever,  are all guilty of the brutal rape (sexual penetration) of children (or is that overly hormonal gay 16,17 year olds?) and they and their 'hierarchs' should all be lined and up and shot down like dogs, going all the way back to the crucifixion through the crusades, because, you know, they helped the NAZI's, and all.

    Yep, we all should suffer horrible fates of "IT" because we dare question these reasonable and just victim-claimants.

    O'Tay, Spanky!

    • dennis ecker says:

      What we do know is that priests, or brothers….whatever,  are all guilty of the brutal rape (s of children and they and their 'hierarchs' should all be lined and up and shot down like dogs, going all the way back to the crucifixion through the crusades, because, you know, they helped the NAZI's, and all

      You said it not us.

      O'Tay Buckwheat !!

  10. delphin says:


    Suggest our gay brethren stick close to their Christian nation-homes.

    It's getting even rougher out there in lovely IslamoLand (where the art of cross-dressing is restricted to the spectrum of rainbow burkahs).

    And, we already know how well-loved they are in Russia, China and North Korea.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "they"! "they"!

      we're just bozos on the bus like you. It will end badly for all of us. you know. we will all be dead. And contrary to your mythology there's no pecking order after you croak.

      [edited by moderator]

  11. Publion says:

    JR comments at 602PM on the 9th. Since only the first of my three comments had been published on the site at that point, let me say that his material in the comment clearly was not intended to cover my subsequent postings of 602PM and especially of 603PM. And I do not presume that his material was intended to deal with the material in those two subsequent comments, especially of mine time-stamped 603PM.


    That being said, I freely presume that his comment of 602PM was indeed intended to reflect my comment of 327PM, and I proceed now on that basis.


    His comment of 602PM is nothing but one long wish for whatever to happen to me or ‘Delphin’ or somebody I love (very slyly inserting the dynamic whereby in order to understand his wish against me, a reader has to presume that his own claims and allegations are true – neat).


    Then he sort-of acknowledges the disturbing enormity of what he has just written, but then quickly excuses himself because – doncha know? – I and ‘Delphin’ are insane. And that it is our being “insane” that has changed him (“you’ve made a change in me with your insanity”).


    It is what it is and readers are welcome to make of it what they will. But I do note a very curious echo: he had claimed in comments on this thread that his sexual (non-)experience with this or that priest was responsible for some great change in him in high-school, whereby he went from the perfect Catholic student to … whatever it is that he then became (and apparently has remained). So it seems rather clear from his own material here that JR has a long-sustained habit of blaming the (exaggerated) faults of others (the “rape” by the priest, the insanity of Delphin and I) for his … issues.


    Without going further into his own issues myself, I simply point out that it was the dark chemistry of the Stampede that persons such as this would suddenly by raised-up by various interests as being somehow very worthy of attention (and, but of course, large payouts).


    And even presuming that he hadn’t read my most recent (603PM) comment, I can’t see how JR can possibly justify the whine inferring that I don’t “know about the subject”. To what is he referring? The Vatican-Holocaust-Nazi material? The military material? Or if he means his asserted claim about what happened to himself, I have made it crystal-clear that his material contains substantial difficulties even according to his own ‘reporting’ of it, and I have explained at great length the implausibility of much of it, and proposed alternative explanations that work at least as well as his allegations in explaining what (little) we know of the actual situations from half a century ago.


    And ‘dennis ecker’ comes in (the 9th, 1245PM) with a self-pitying and self-justifying bleat that after all his efforts to “try to be civil” yet “you get comment like this from a donkey”. [sic] I don’t know if he is referring to me or to ‘Delphin’, but he then goes on to include both of us in his next sly move: because of our “educated comments” he is – the Wig of Professionally Informed Concern – “truly worried how these two individuals will react if the conviction of Lynn is upheld”.


    The “truly” is a nice touch.


    But what can he possibly be worrying about? That we will start using exaggerated formatting in posts? Or that one or both of us will – in his professional opinion – start to decompensate? (He can check his “ app” for the clinical definition if by some chance he isn’t already familiar with the term.) He can rest easy: neither of us have attempted the truly disturbing gambit of soliciting real-time information about residence and contact information and other vital stats from other commenters (although – if he recalls – there has indeed been such a truly disturbing effort in that direction in comments on this thread very recently).


    So – with nothing else more useful to proffer – he engages in his signature innuendo, tinged as always with that queasy undertone of violence (emotional, if not also physical): if the appellate court finds against Lynn, we might “do” something.


    I won’t speak here for ‘Delphin’ but if such an eventuality comes to pass, I will most certainly do something: I will forthwith continue to do what I have been doing here, offering my analysis and assessment of events and claims.


    But come to think of it, perhaps that is really what he’s worried about. And rightly so, I imagine.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Your welcome to speculate till the cattle ring your door bell.

      Unless you have a credential for declaring people sane or not sane. Shut up.

      And how would we know what an anonymous person or persons (D can be included here) do or don't have credentials and, licenses, for.?

      You could be anybody. You can look us up.

      The two victims who post here Dennis Ecker and I stand behind our names.

      You, You just imagine you're a secret shrink. And I'm nuts? You just "believe" in myriad unprovable illusions and I'm the one who's nuts?

       Let's have some real shrinks roll through this place. I'll take my chances.

      But you judge me? On sanity? Not by you illusionists and hidden accusors.

      I could probably have you arrested for attempting to practice medicine with out a license.

  12. delphin says:

    "D lied she was a" lifer". Not me. She also seems to have lied about her connection to 9/11."

    How could you or anybody else here possibly know anything or enough to draw any such conclusions about any of these items except for what I personally posted in my own comments?  Your conclusions and assumptions will not be verified, denied or clarified, obviously, but, it is a interesting observation that you drew your own conclusions sans any declarative information, never mind evidence, just the same.

    Do you do that often, everywhere- such as pertains to your own claimed abuse experience and your conspiracy claims against the Catholic Church? We must presume so since you did it ( the "IT" here is 'distorted and lied' to meet your agenda) to my very limited and contextual comments in full view of all TMR commenters and reviewers.

    [edited by moderator]

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Princess, you said that you had a military career. Not me. Not Dennis. You said it. You also said your family had owned gay bars in New York city. You said you were in the subway at the exit for the twin towers on 9/11 when the first plane hit. Then you said you were part of the rescue effort or clean up in the aftermath of the horror. You said these things. What, of all that is true?

  13. Publion says:

    The pounds of sounds and stacks of wax just keep coming. (Thanks to some DJ back in the day.)


    Having presumably read my comment of 603PM, JR chooses (the 9th, 642PM) to change the subject from one he doesn’t know (the Church and the Holocaust) to one he likes to talk about: his own past experiences (as he interprets them). Thus an excursus into Hollywood in his childhood.


    Where, we are assured, it was the “church” that “ran the movie game in Hollywood”. (Were you thinking that the likes of Louis B. Mayer and the Brothers Warner and others of their peers and successors did so? That would be wrong, we know, because JR has told us so.)


    What any of it has to do with the Vatican and the Holocaust is anybody’s guess. On top of whether JR’s assertions and characterizations about Hollywood in the 50s (being now 66 or 67, by his own report, then I don’t imagine he was thinking about movies in the first 4 years of his life – but then, he was so fine, right up until … and so on and so forth).


    And at 651PM JR asks “Is everything a façade with you?”. From that he spins a web whereby I “treat people like we are all fakes”. But that is a characteristic dodge for him: a) he hides himself behind the absurdly abstract and general “people”, then b) wonders plaintively why I treat them “like fakes”.


    But I haven’t approached “people” like that. Only JR and some others commenting here. And only because and only after they have put up material that not only doesn’t stand up to analysis, but after they have continuously produced subsequent material that becomes increasingly incoherent and implausible by any rational and conceptual analysis, and not only that but then after they then  insist that they are perfectly forthright and honest and that it is the questioners who must clearly be (fill in the blank, starting with dumb or insane or fools or idiots or all of the foregoing).


    And then the Wig of Diagnosis: I am ‘projecting’ … and what might the Doctor think I am projecting? Or did he just copy the word down on a 3×5 card and neglect to actually get a grasp on the concept?


    If JR can quote any of my material where I am “being fake about” something, let him put it up here, along with his analysis and assessment explaining how he reached that conclusion. Wouldn’t that be interesting? He might set up a professional consult with his associate Wig, who has actually gone to the trouble of tapping-out a claim to actual medical diagnostic and reporting training – although such skills as he developed seem to have now utterly abandoned him, by all indications from the material we have on this site.


    I don’t “see fakery every where in this scandal”; I see some serious and substantial implausibility in a great deal of the material that has been tossed up here. But have I missed “the one place it is most apparent”? I don’t think so at all. I think I have found it. So very much of everything else has yet to be demonstrated and surely isn’t “apparent”; but that material I have assessed here – well, that material is very very apparent indeed.


    Meanwhile, I suggest JR refrain from the Shroud of Turin since he most absolutely knows nothing about the science involved in analyzing it, and that he stick with something he only mostly doesn’t know anything about, i.e. the Vatican-Holocaust connection. Of course I presume he knows a great deal about his own ‘story’ since he provided  the narrative of it himself.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      LOL! You can't have a 2000 year old imprint of a body, "appear" on a medieval linen cloth. Especially when that body ascended into heaven 40 days after that body's said resurection.

      This is really funny. You believe almost every piece of imaginary nonsense the church has handed out over the last 2000 years ( I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were against the church's stance on Galileo)

      Yet real victims talking about our real lives and our real abuse at the hands of your church's representatives. That you question ceaslessly. And you're the big intellectual here. LOL!

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Oh I know who physically ran Hollywood, who owned the studios but their product had to meet the standards of the catholic church. Remember the Legion of Decency?  It probably still exists.

      I can give you a list of church condemned films if you like. Starting with "The Garden of Allah" or "The Moon is Blue"; "Baby Doll" etc. etc. and etcetera.

      Even Rabbi Magnin was called, amongst the L.A. Jewish population," Cardinal" Magnin because of his relationship with the catholic church here.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I know It's hard for you to understand things said to you. I was trying to show you how much your church used to control the public arena.

      The power of the catholic population as controlled by the clergy was such that some issues weren't to be thought of in film. Film only being one example of catholic "thought" control. And the clergy was granted that power in huge part by catholics because of it's so called "moral authority". That "moral authority" is gone. It was dissolved by your own bad behavior towards your victims. That's your own fault. When you cared for the abusive priests more than you did for the victims of those priests. You destroyed any claims you had on defining morality to anyone. Which on one level is really sad because IMHO the church has been right on Capital Punishment and on the contradictions and flaws in capitalism itself.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      This might be easier for you.

      Is there any thing in catholic history that you don't find right?

  14. Jim Robertson says:

    You talk about Pius the XI  but you don't mention Pius XII. Why's that? I remember a quotation about Pacelli not being Hitlers pope but definately being Hitler's cardinal.

    There are many factions inside the oldest corporation on the planet. Some winds blow one way other winds an other way.

    You are right, XI spoke the truth about many things if XI had lived there might have been a different out come alltogether, maybe.  He evidently loved making concordats. He seemed a very bright person. He died too soon. He might have really made a difference.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      P.S.Pius XI died just before his encyclical, Humani Generis Unitas (On the Unity of the Human Race) which specifically condemned anti-semitism, could be released. It was held back by the head of the Jesuit order at the time, Woldimir Ledochowski.

        Funny how good popes die just as they are about to do something really good. Yet bad popes go on and on. JP2 comes to mind as a bad pope..IMO

      If you've noticed they haven't made John XXIII a saint nor JPI. Not enough miracles I bet.

  15. Jim Robertson says:

    P. I read mien kampf.

    The one thing about apologists is that they never stop apologizing. Your excuses for the church's behavior are lame. But in your mind the church is always out for the best no matter what. I disagree.

  16. Jim Robertson says:

    I notice you didn't answer the contradiction of Pius XII condeming Soviet Communism with out much concern for the safety of catholics behind the Iron Curtain. And the fact he did not do the same to National Socialism, while it existed.

  17. Publion says:

    Moving along to the most recent crop.


    On the 10th, at 1148AM JR gives his game away again. Apparently simply not agreeing with JR is demonstrable evidence of being “wrong”. Thus I have “been wrong” about: his “personal sex abuse”; the miracles at Lourdes; the “catholic run rat lines that got Mengele and other Nazis to South America and other countries”; and – waittttt for itttttttttt! – “the church’s connection to Facism period”. [sic]


    We note here that these are nothing but assertions and there is no explanation as to how any of my material on any of those enumerated subjects was “wrong” (except, as stated, that if you disagree with JR’s cartoons then you are by definition “wrong”).


    But consider this type of mindset as characteristic of Abuseniks: if you disagree with what they have told you, then obviously and by definition you are “wrong”. Of course, there will be no explanations forthcoming as to how you are “wrong” – because in the Abusenik universe the simple fact of disagreeing with them (even after you have identified and discussed the problematic material and your objections to it at length) makes you “wrong”. This is a situation where the clowns have been allowed to take over the circus. And the next question is: why would the elite institutions of an ostensibly mature and advanced society not only allow but enable such a thing?


    And thus – again – it is not so much JR’s material, which by this time must simply be accepted for what it is and what it will always be. Rather, we are best-advised to examine it and consider it as indicative of the Abusenik universe itself.


    Then JR says that it “seems to” him that the Church was simply behaving like a multinational corporation and playing both sides. Which contradicts the evidence at all points: even the merest survey of a book such as Burleigh’s will reveal – with copious document references, clearly identified – the amount of objection the Church lodged against Hitler. And – as I noted – Hitler lost the 1932 election, for which the Catholic bishops’ opposition (as I noted) must be considered to have played a part. But then the Weimar elites themselves brought Hitler to power for their own reasons.


    JR being JR, I’d need a reference for that quote of Pacelli’s in Hungary in 1938 (he claims). Then-Cardinal Pacelli addressed a Eucharistic Conference in Budapest in 1938; he made clear and acute reference to “the lugubrious array of the militant godless, shaking the clenched fist of the anti-Christ” and he enumerated modern-day embodiments of the ancient spirit that cried of Christ “Crucify him” – and that list of ancients included “Herod and Pilate, Nero and Diocletian, Julian the Apostate, and all the persecutors of the first century A.D.”. But nothing about “the Jews” at all (and the omission of any such reference in Central Europe in 1938 would itself have been noted by listeners). Nothing about “the Jews” – except that Herod was Jewish, but in this context was clearly included because he was a Roman Imperial puppet.


    So JR’s inaccurate (perhaps merely misinformed, perhaps dishonest – but only if you imagine that he had actually read any documentary material or the text of Pacelli’s address itself) tinkering with the actual text and words of Pacelli is glaring here: he introduces as referring to “the Jews” phrases which actually in the text referred specifically and directly to Roman Imperial personnel and the puppet king Herod. (For introductory purposes, the Wiki entry will serve well enough, and includes a list of scholarly materials for further reference if any reader (or maybe JR) wishes to conduct further research. See the link at the bottom of this comment.)


    And after reading what then-Cardinal Pacelli actually said, and then re-reading JR’s tawdry attempt to mis-apply it, readers can then assess JR’s overall reliability as an accurate reporter and describer. Readers may then want to re-read JR’s comment on this thread about what allegedly happened to him down in the chem-lab and wonder on from there.


    But this type of mentality and character was valorized in our own era as being a font of truth about the Church and priests and their own experiences (the stories submitted, after heavy waxing by torties, being eligible for hefty remuneration).


    Then (the 10th, 123PM) he snarks about my “wearing blinders”. The characterization is unexplained and unsupported.


    Then he goes on about what I “obviously” have not experienced. If anybody can figure out how he got that “obviously” they are welcome to offer that enlightenment. But of course this is a typical JR gambit: if it’s about any of his stories and cartoons, then “obviously” anybody who doesn’t buy them is “wearing blinders”. Yah.


    Now the government is added to the list of those who have imposed on him and no doubt ‘victimized’ him: it took him away from his home and “forced” him “to serve against [his] will during the Viet Nam war”. Awwwww – in the Canal Zone, as a passport clerk, counting the days until he could get out, with only a very small chance of a stray round from the battlefields over in Viet Nam placing any further victimzing demands upon his attention. Gee. Golly. Wow. An outrageous tragedy indeed.


    I think it more accurate to say – although this is by no means a guarantee – that he only knew how non-combat draftees far from any battlefront felt, having to trudge around a Caribbean locality and go to an office every morning. The horror. But when you are into the Wig business, then you have to make the best of what experiences you have. Sort of like his sex-(non-)experiences about which he made allegations: it wasn’t much but you have to apply as much wax as necessary to cover up the insufficiencies. More of a pattern.


    He wasn’t a “lifer” – meaning that he wasn’t intending to make a career or profession of the military. And clearly the military wasn’t overly impressed with him either (a 5-grade promotion record (he claims) and yet nothing but a GCM to show for it).


    But again we see here the dynamic that has kept the various Abusenik-exchange sites going: they keep telling their stories (on the internet, where nobody can really know or find-out) and the deal is that nobody questions anybody else’s story and so they all believe each other and – in payment – they are all believed by everybody else … and the hall of mirrors is turned into a skyscraper of mirrors. Then they try to run that usual play of theirs on a site like this and … get very very irritated.


    Then an irrelevant bit about his being at a headquarters. So what? And he was a passport clerk. Nor has he addressed the fact that in his original telling of his story he was just up the road from a unit that didn’t even exist during the Viet Nam era. So much for “facts” and “cold hard facts” (and mightn’t we imagine that the same cavalier approach to “facts” played a role in the allegations that were later to come, during the Stampede?).


    But then – as if realizing that he really doesn’t want to have to ‘splain all that – he dons the Wig of Exasperated Innocence and – waittttt for ittttttttt! – even ladles on a prayer to “Dear Jesus” (technically, it would be classified as an ‘ejaculation’ rather than a ‘prayer’, but given JR’s demonstrated predilections for certain body parts I don’t want to go too far down that road). “Dear Jesus enough!” – how often I have found myself murmuring the very same thing, after reading yet more of his material.


    And and and and and … he once again claims that “all [he] offered was a link to Dennis”. This is either a put-on or else he truly is deranged. But in no way does it do anything to burnish his credibility or his reliability. If he cannot or will not face up to the material that is right here on this site in the record, how does he think we are going to be able to credit his allegations (which, in his telling of his story, are iffy enough on their own)?


    Or perhaps, like Nixon’s press secretary at a particularly touchy press conference, he would like to declare his previous statements “no longer operative”? No, he’ll go the more childish route: let’s just forget about all that and pretend it didn’t happen and then let’s pretend instead that … and the beat goes on.


    He concludes with the Eckerian ‘shouting’ – which, as I have said, is always a dead giveaway with these two: they ‘shout’ when their material itself can’t do the job they want it to do.


    Then on the 10th at 137PM he asserts that “obviously” I was “never stationed at a Military headquarters” [sic]. He knows that for a fact, a cold hard fact, does he? Because if I did I would know that “at the top you get promoted faster”. No, really, you don’t. You get promoted faster if you are good at what you are assigned to do (which makes me doubt his promotion story in the first place) and then you often get an award (the AAM or maybe even the ACM, perhaps, for enlisted) at the end of your tour for being a top .. performer. But that didn’t happen and he only got a discharge and a GCM. So: No, this bit doesn’t burnish his creds about knowledge of military ways at all. But, as I said in a prior comment, perhaps for JR qualifying for the GCM was quite an achievement all by itself.


    Of course – this being the internet – then we can never really ask his daughter, can we? How convenient. Perhaps she can also explain about the unit that didn’t exist at the time she was born there? Maybe she might have some repressed-memory of it.


    The snark about her “Immaculate Conception” is – given the full scope of JR’s claims on this site – not a topic the possibilities of which I intend to go into here, even though he himself has opened the door. No need to thank me.


    Then (the 9th, 859PM) we have one from ‘dennis ecker’. Who is this “we” who “do know … that priests … are guilty of the brutal rape (s of children” [sic] and so on and so forth? And how do “we” “know” that? Nobody “knows” any such thing and if “Dennis” has any actual proof (as opposed to claims, stories, and allegations or media ‘reports’ that simply assume the veracity of those claims, stories, and allegations) then let him put it up here. Might there have been one or several such “brutal rape (s” [sic]?  - it could logically be a possibility, but that’s not proof such that anybody can claim that s/he “knows”, let alone that some universal and general “we” knows.


    And if there are few – if any – such allegations in the accumulated record of formal allegations-made, then how does “Dennis” claim to “know”, let alone whatever “we” to which he alludes? Again, he has been in the hall of mirrors (or – now – skyscraper of mirrors) for so long that he mistakes (or deliberately confuses) its lurid phantasms for reality. So let’s have some plural demonstrations of those plural and multiple “rape (s” [sic]. For that matter, if he has such “proof” and he does “know” (about some particular and specific instances), then why hasn’t he gone to the police?


    And if he is suggesting a general and extensive amount of brutal-raping, as opposed to one or several specific instances, then it will be all the more interesting to see his demonstration of the veracity of his assertion.


    And then (is the medication wearing off before our eyes here?) he goes off on a real roll: those priests and brothers “should be lined up and shot down like dogs” and then takes that rather violent fantasy “all the way back to the crucifixion” (there were no priests in that era; is he thinking here of Christ Himself? Or the Apostles?) and then he brings it all the way up “through the crusades”.


    And then – is he being sarcastic here in regard to JR’s material or is he actually trying to make this assertion too? – “they helped the Nazi’s  and all …” [sic] And then the sentence – perhaps not surprisingly if there is weakening medication involved – trails off without further ado or final punctuation. (I omitted the exaggerated formatting and ‘shouting’ of the original, as well.) Is he actually asserting – and expecting to be taken seriously – that the allegedly brutally-rapacious priests and brothers and so on and so forth were somehow directly connected to the Nazis?


    But perhaps he took that cartoon drawn by the SS artists seriously? Or perhaps he took the 1937 Koblenz charges seriously? Or perhaps he has believed all this all along?


    At any rate, anybody who might have heretofore had any doubts as to that queasy undertone of violence in the imaginings of “Dennis” might want to re-visit their assessment.


    And then he concludes with an assertion as stupefying as it is unsupportable: “You said it not us”. What material of mine can he (accurately) quote that can support that crack-dream assertion?


    But – even more of a revelation – he is apparently quite satisfied with his performance in this comment and concludes by spiking the ball (he imagines he’s on the far side of some goal-posts here) with that juvenile blatt about … “Buckwheat”. Go figure. But again: anyone who has been politely and charitably withholding assessment about this commenter might seriously want to re-consider, in the light of this performance.


    And so much for the credibility of those pious bleats delivered here and there under the various Wigs of Pious (fill in the blank: Prayer, Concern, Anxiety, Outrage, or what-have-you).


    Then JR (the 9th, 1038PM) gets back to something he only mostly knows nothing about: I talk about Pius XI but I don’t talk about Pius XII. But since JR’s (well, really Deschner’s) ramblings cover the period from Hitler’s early doings through his attempted putsch and on up through his accession to the Chancellorship and then on up and into the war itself and then the initiation of the Holocaust proper in 1942 and on into the immediate postwar period … all that took place under two pontificates and not one. Pius XII did not become Pope until March, 1939 and everything before that in regard to Hitler and the Nazis took place in the papacy of Pius XI.


    But I did deal with JR’s bit about Pius XII’s address at the Budapest Eucharistic Conference above. I also note that in July 2012 Yad Vashem rewrote its explanatory text under his photos at the Jerusalem site to reflect the fact that “his neutrality prevented harsher measures against the Vatican and the Church’s institutions throughout Europe, thus enabling a considerable number of secret rescue activities to take place at different levels of the Church”. Which reflects a significant change from its prior caption’s position.


    We may make what we will of what JR might “remember”. And if JR can explain exactly what Cardinal Pacelli did (accurate quotations, please) that would support the bit about being “Hitler’s Cardinal” … well wouldn’t that be nice?


    Now all of a sudden JR declaims that there are “many factions” in the Church. So much for the Cartoon about the Church being a monolithic corporate monstrosity run totally and completely by the Pope. He could lose his Abusenik union-card for talk like this (although he appears to have been voted off that island already).


    But I cannot seriously accept that if Pius XI “had lived there might have been a different out come altogether”. [sic] Because World War 2 in Europe was not primarily about the Pope or the Church in the first place. The war was Hitler’s to make and he made it, and he ran it the way he wanted to, and it was what it was and it went where it went. And both Popes realized that and did what they could under those unimaginable and volatile circumstances.


    But JR does touch upon an interesting bit (without realizing it, it appears): under Pius XI the Church made around forty concordats. Why? Because after World War 1 the political map of Europe was hugely re-drawn, with the some of the great Empires and monarchies gone and a bevy of new states and statelets and governments having come to power. And thus the Church had to re-establish basic operating rules with each of them.


    It has to be noted here – and perhaps it will come as news to some – that a Concordat is not a ‘treaty’ as in, say, a treaty of alliance. It is a diplomatic contract spelling-out the rights of the Church to be recognized by this or that government with whom the Concordat is made. Pius didn’t “like” to make them; he had to. Especially with the number of “totalitarian” governments – of the Left or of the Right – that had come into existence following the Great War. And as Nuncio in Bavaria and later as Vatican Secretary of State then-Cardinal Pacelli had to oversee and in some cases personally manage the diplomatic negotiations. In the case of the Concordat with Germany, as the text for which I provided the link clearly indicates, it was mostly about the Church’s independence in conducting education.


    And on the 9th at 1136PM we are informed that JR has indeed read “mien kampf”. Ovvvv coursssse. And what did he think of Hitler’s excursus on how to manipulate public opinion? It has always been my thought after reading Mein Kampf that Goebbels was not so original a PR genius as he has been made out to be; Hitler had come up with an awful lot of the basic schematics in the book. Perhaps JR noticed the similarities between Hitler’s vision of PR and the Stampede dynamics?


    If he might do anything more useful and substantial than toss more ketchup (my historical material here is “lame”) then let him do so. Otherwise I don’t see how he can ever expect to be taken seriously. If, indeed, he actually expects to be. Perhaps he just likes throwing ketchup plops at the screen and feels better after he has done so. Abusenik crusading as personal therapy – that’s not inconceivable, actually.


    And once again, he draws grossly unsupportable conclusions from … whatever. In this case, that “in [my] mind the church is always out for the best no matter what”. I have never said that or anything that could be characterized accurately as that. Nor have I made “excuses for the church’s behavior”. I have on this site simply taken the material that various Abuseniks have proffered and pointed out the conceptual or historical problems with that material. Rather than deal with those problems – even if only to substantively counter them – JR and others will simply draw insupportably broad conclusions and contentedly call it a day, placing upon it the seal of some ever-handy ketchup.


    Thus he cannot self-servingly characterize his own performance as being merely one of scholarly disagreement (“I disagree”). The Abuseniks haven’t so much ‘disagreed’ here – making their own case rationally and coherently – as much as they have simply thrown ketchup at what they don’t like and then claimed they get no respect. As I said, getting into the mud with them is a mug’s game and I won’t waste my own or readers’ time playing it.


    And lastly (at least as I write this comment) at 1137PM on the 9th, JR claims – in the accents of scholarship – that he doth “notice” that I “didn’t answer the contradiction of Pius XII condeming Soviet Communism with out much concern for the safety of Catholics behind the Iron Curtain” [sic]. I refer him – alas – to my comment on this thread time-stamped the 9th at 1211AM, where I did precisely that. Amazing that he can’t keep things straight even over a 24-hour period, and yet has such detailed ‘true’ stories to tell about the long-long-ago. But what we see here is the Stampede writ-small. And what’s primarily of vital interest about that is not the quirks, quacks, and squeaks in the individual mentalities, but rather that for the past thirty and more years such mentalities and such gambits were ‘valorized’ by various elites as vitally and reliably truthful sources of knowledge about priests and the Church in this country.




    • Jim Robertson says:

      Hey sunshine I've been compensated remember. Your" buying" the truth of my past means nothing to me. I've already been paid. I'm here to make sure other injured victims get paid for the injuries of their past that your system caused. And you're going to do the paying.

      Suck on that for a while.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Did he make a concordat with the Soviet Union?

  18. Publion says:

    I’d follow-up my prior comment – and also develop more clearly a point to which I have been alluding for quite a while – with this thought: we see – on this site and others – among the Abuseniks, a clear lack of intellectual rigor. By that phrase I mean: the quality that can only come from not only ‘reading’ but rather from actually working-with ideas, comparing and contrasting them with other ideas, sifting them rationally and coherently, assessing them and formulating your idea(s) clearly, and then putting your ideas out there for ‘peer review’ – such that you have to explain them to questioners (no matter what initial attitude – skeptical or approving – those questioners might have toward your ideas).


    This is the part of a genuine education of the mind that nobody can acquire simply by ‘reading’. It is, however, a classic give-away of what is known formally as an ‘autodidact’, someone who is self-taught (usually through mere reading and the amassing of a pile of 3x5s from which necessary ‘proof-text’ quotes and other bits are pulled as needed). This does not often yield useful knowledge; although with an especially gifted person (one thinks here of Abraham Lincoln) the reading is fed into a mind that is already remarkably prepared for actual competent give-and-take (as demonstrated in the record of his case arguments as a lawyer, his lengthy and extensive debates with Stephen Douglas, and his various State papers as President).


    And it is also a characteristic of material the absence of which indicates that a writer either cannot or (for whatever reasons) deliberately does not deploy. On this basis I have pointed out problems with the material of several commenters on this site over the course of time. It is also a problem with Deschner’s material and with the very relevant fact that over the course of decades’ of writing he has never put his material up for peer-review and quite possibly has avoided the possibility of such review and whatever critical analysis might flow from it.


    But this defect has – in the construction and continuation of the Stampede and the Abusenik universe of discourse – actually been raised to the status of a necessary virtue. And in an effort to mimic the intellectual characteristics they have not actually achieved, so many of them simply cut straight to the chase and deliver themselves of ‘conclusions’ that thus wind up coming out as merely unsubstantiated and unexplained assertions (which, of course, they cannot defend because so often they never even imagined that substantiating their material was a necessary part of the process, along with actual research).


    All of which has been amplified by a media whose reporters are equally not-educated into their own tasks and responsibilities: the development of so-called ‘advocacy journalism’ simply required that a ‘reporter’ take down the claims, report them as facts or else simply focus-on the ‘stories’ rather than examine those stories, selectively deploy ‘factoids’ rather than fully-conceived ‘facts’, and call it a good day’s work. Day after day, month after month, year after year.

    • dennis ecker says:

      [edited by moderator]

      Those two guys still feel that the money that comes out of their pockets does not meet the pockets of survivors as it should.

      Maybe book smart, but they are both so very street stupid.


  19. delphin says:

    "And contrary to your mythology there's no pecking order after you croak."

    How do you know, have you "… been there, and back…", so to speak?

  20. delphin says:


    I wonder if any of Milk's minor sexual abuse victims will be there to celebrate?

    Will they sue the Cali or US government for endorsing true pedophilia/pederasty, coverup, anything?

    Will the 'LGBTXYZ' community, who also once embraced NAMBLA (and still does in most inner circles), protest this outrage?

    Hypocrisy reins supreme over the rainbow-

  21. delphin says:

    "LOL! You can't have a 2000 year old imprint of a body, "appear" on a medieval linen cloth. Especially when that body ascended into heaven 40 days after that body's said resurection."

    I am quite sure that the irony of your own contradiction within your above statement is entirely lost on you and your 'Squeeky' toy, there, 'Brutus'.

    This just gets better, and 'betterer'-

  22. Jim Robertson says:

    I didn't say I believed he ascended. That's your myth I was referencing. Jeeeeeez!

  23. delphin says:

    "You said these things. What, of all that is true?"

    Every word I contribute to TMR, in my own words, in my own context, as posted, is true, or else why would I submit it – I certainly have nothing to gain by lying (and in my world, much, much more to lose), as do you and 'Squeeky'?

    How you or the side kick may regurgitate (distort, extrapolate, lie, mangle) my words as rolled up in your assumptions and conclusions on material not provided directly by me, about me or my ideology, is subject to your bizarre imaginations, which have been clearly evidenced here, will not be confirmed or denied by me. I have no interest or intention in encouraging your bad behavior.

    I stand by all my comments as submitted/printed, and especially restate and reinforce those that irk you most. That is how we know you are those wolves in sheep clothing; Your most visceral and hate-filled reactions give you away every time.

  24. delphin says:


    Only one of thousands of righteous Catholics (and other Christians) defamed by baseless Atheist-Communist propaganda.

    What does it get them in the end, another fly-by-night sex partner (pardon the pun)?

  25. Jim Robertson says:

    What has Harvy Milk got to do with me? Zip. Leonardo Da Vinci was convicted of pedophilia in Firenzi. We have had a stamp with him on it. I didn't hear you whining about that. If Milk did something wrong. It ain't me. Nor do I support people harming kids. If you don't know that about me. You're a fool.

    You think all gay people are the same? When did I become all gay people? Is it because I'm the only one you've ever conversed with this long? Now I'm Mr. Gay? Do I get a crown? I'm all gay people and all gay people are me. Wow. Does a stipend come with the appointment because that'll sure be a lot of work for me to be all gay people ever, all the time..


  26. Jim Robertson says:

    Again, Am I going to get a degree from Anonymus U at the end of all this?. I didn't come here to see who had the most unseen degrees behind their un seen names. I am not enrolled in your class because frankly you're not a good teacher. You may live in make believe land. I don't. No I'm not Abe Lincoln nor even Abby Lincoln just a victim doing my self appointed job of not letting you get away with your b.s..

    The days of Catholic pronouncements on morality being regarded as automatic fact are no more. You did that. Not me .  Not my stupidity. Not my lack of smarts. You did it and continue to do it every time you don't compensate your victims.  Your victims. We belong to you. We aren't going away.

  27. delphin says:


    Pedophelia being classified by APA as normal, coming to a state near you, soon!

    I guess our innocent priests will have their own day in settlement court, soon – yes? Can the Church get her booty back? Where is Laurie, anybody see her lately?

    The "gay lobby" will get this little snack which has been in their cross-hairs, too – along with the ridiculous gay 'marriage' thing. Harry Hay (d.), Harvey Milk (d.) and David Thorstadt (still offending somewhere) must be in absolute ecstasy (a disgusting thought).

    What say you, parents/grandparents of the tasty little love-lust interests for the adult LBGT community…ready to roll out your precious little kiddies to satisfy the radical social agenda of the progressive-predators?

    Your vicious dog is gaining on you all-

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You are so funny. What if i wasn't gay; posting what I've written here? Everything I've written would be exactly the same; just no personal mention of my being gay.

      Would of all people you be mentioning nambla to me?. When in fact it was one of your priests, fr. Shanley, who addressed a nambla conference.and was later jailed for molesting children.

      Your attempt to smear gay people with nambla is rich. Your church's enablers have molested more children than nambla ever dreamed possible. Your church is nambla writ LARGE.

  28. Publion says:

    And once again.


    On the 10th at 1PM JR now will lecture us on papal encyclicals, specifically Pius XI’s unpublished Human Generis Unitas  (The Unity of the Human Race)  – which, he acknowledges – “specifically condemned anti-semitism” [sic]. So far so not so bad.


    But heads of religious Orders don’t have the authority to ‘hold back’ the publication of papal encyclicals (a trained military mind, schooled in hierarchical organizations, would have realized that rather quickly). What happened was that Pius XI had read a then-recent book by an American Jesuit about racism in the US, and was interested in trying to tie in anti-Semitism and American racism (probably through their underlying dynamics). The American Jesuit – for reasons of his own personal issues – flubbed it, and sent along what material he had to his General, Wlodimir Ledochowski (scion of some Polish nobility and anxious more about the Red threat from the USSR than the Nazi threat from Germany). At any rate, by the time Ledochowski got the notes (not – again – the full, ready-to-print version of the encyclical) it was the Fall of ’38: Pius XI was increasingly unwell medically (he would die in a few months) and Hitler by the Fall of ’38 had already made overt moves in Czechoslovakia and Austria. When Cardinal Pacelli became Pius XII a month after Pius XI died, the notes were forwarded to him. (Perfectly understandable procedure under the circumstances, to the trained military and hierarchical mind.)


    Pius XII became Pope in March ’39, and his first encyclical – Summi Pontificatus, issued in October of ‘39 – clearly used much of Pius XI’s material and notes in that text, and its subtitle was “On the unity of human society”, in an acknowledging nod to Pius XI’s material. (With the publication of what exists of Pius XI’s material  in 1995 the two texts can be compared.)


    Pius XI (how nice of JR to call him a “good” Pope) died of numerous serious medical issues for which he had long refused treatment in order to focus on what he saw as vital work. The inference that he was gotten out of the way can be left up hanging up there where JR (let’s say Deschner, actually) has put it. But then JR also delivers his characterizations of who he thinks were “bad popes”, including – and who can be surprised? – John Paul II (as well, as presumably, Pius XII).


    Also, I wouldn’t use the term “comes to mind” if I were this commenter.


    Then (the 11th, 1120AM) we get the nonsensical bit (already alluded to by ‘Delphin’ here) that “you can’t have a 2000 year-old imprint of a body, ‘appear’ on a medieval linen cloth”. Clearly, as was noted by ‘Delphin’, neither the chronology nor the subsequent math works for this bit. (But then: that note in his file said he wasn’t good at math and chemistry.)


    Although in the realm of the formally ‘miraculous’, we are by definition beyond the realm of any causality known to material-physical science, and so JR’s bit ludicrously says both too much and too little to assert that “you can’t have” and so on.


    What do we know? That in 1981 a team of scientists (the Shroud of Turin Project) stated that the image is not the work of an artist, that it is the actual form of a man who has been both scourged and crucified, that it tests positive for serum albumin, and that the stains are human blood.


    Beyond that and since 1981, there have been a number of tests performed, but scientists still cannot agree on what they have here. It is also a separate and confounding puzzle to them as to how the image was transmitted to the cloth shroud in the first place, since nothing known to modern science can account for that transmission of the image onto the shroud.


    The Church has never pronounced definitively on its provenance.


    One scientist has tried to cover all the bases with the theory that the image was transmitted to the shroud via radiation at the moment of the Resurrection – but there is no radiation currently known to science that could effect this.


    All that being said, JR’s pronunciamento can remain – in all its ketchup-splattered reality – hanging up where it was tossed.


    He then further demonstrates his extensive and profound lack of information by making reference to Galileo, whose troubles were not his ‘discovery’ (the Church was interested in his science and there had been prior theories put forward along those lines before him) but rather that he insisted on claiming as a fact what was then considered – in the judgment of the Roman Inquisition, which studied all of the available contemporary scientific evidence  – only possessed of sufficient grounding to qualify as one scientific theory among others. Galileo then got miffed and started mouthing-off about his genius, and it was that refusal to publicly call his ideas a theory (rather than an established fact) until he had achieved more scientific evidence that resulted in his troubles.


    JR has more challenges facing him than worrying about giving anybody else “the benefit of the doubt”.


    But then he swings into his usual vaudeville hoofing: we have here  – it is to be believed – a) “real victims” who are b) “talking about our real lives” and c) “our real abuse at the hands of your church’s representatives”. Now this is a perfect précis of precisely the issues where – given what we have seen and examined on this site – we i) cannot establish any supporting “cold hard facts” at all and ii) have actually uncovered numerous difficulties leading to the much-heightened probability that neither the stories nor the story-tellers are reliably veracious. Thus too: we cannot establish (a) or (b) or (c) within any acceptable range of probability at all, and most very certainly cannot endow (a) or (b) or (c) with the status of “fact” or of being “real”.


    Nor have any storytellers here effectively addressed any of the problems in their material and their presentations.


    But as I said in my immediately prior comment, we are precisely not dealing here with people who have  ever had to conform to any intellectual formation or rigor, and who quite possibly have no idea of what such formation and rigor requires. And about that all I can tell them is that ketchup is a very poor substitute indeed.

    • Jim Robertson says:

       So they found human blood on the Shamble of Turin.( Sure it's not ketchup?) Real blood gosh! that sure would be hard to fake.

      It didn't glow or levitate or stop the sun or heal the sick did it? It's god 's blood too isn't it?

      Your faith is a house of cards built on sand. One little breeze of truth and it all falls down.

      Can you tell me please anything the church did that wasn't right in your construct in it's 2000 years?

  29. Jim Robertson says:

    Unity of the Human Race is very very different from "The unity of human society" Particularly in racist Europe at the heights of it's racism. But why bother.

  30. delphin says:

    "You think all gay people are the same? When did I become all gay people? Is it because I'm the only one you've ever conversed with this long? Now I'm Mr. Gay? Do I get a crown? I'm all gay people and all gay people are me."

    Of course I do, just as you've attempted to convince us that all Catholic priests, and all other Catholics, since the establishment of Jesus' Church are the same corrupt, child abusing, oppressive, lying NAZI-loving criminals as are the relatively few perpetrators that actually committed crimes (go reread your 'vomit' here at TMR) - isn't this your very own broad-brush philosophy come back to bite you?

    Isn't this very point I've been making all along, much to your gangs chagrin, hence your ridiculous claims of 'isms' against me? Why, I only used that same brush against your peeps as you've been using against mine.

    Doesn't it 'feel good', anymore?

    Incidentally, I am sure that given your 'ripeness', you've already had a crown, or two…

  31. delphin says:


    Just another antiCatholic hater (Serb Orthodox) that has his 'hate-roots' founded in the historic Serb-Croatian religious animosity. Same guy pushing the 'rat line' lawsuit against the Vatican (through Cali's 9th circuit, of all places…)

    Hating Catholics and loving money (settlements) is a whole lotta incentive to make big stinky noise about those wascally Catholic priests (who also happen to be accused of hoarding all that WWII gold and other war booty in the infamous Vatican 'stolen loot vaults').

    I am 'shocked' that antiCatholic bigotry and the prospect of haters getting their grubby, lazy, greasy hands on some of that presumed booty is behind the 'rat line expressway to easy retirement' initiative.

    Perhaps we'll soon 'learn' from our resident 'conspira-truthers' that it really wasn't the US government that brought down the WTC, but, more likely the Vatican.

    Yeah, 'that's the ticket'-

    After all, we've never seen anything like 'that' before…

  32. delphin says:

    "Particularly in racist Europe at the heights of it's racism."

    …as opposed to 'non-racist' Asia and Africa; then, and today.

    The self-hating crowd are in dire need of education (as clearly evidenced by their 'contributions' here at TMR) to undo the 'reeducation' they have unwittingly absorbed courtesy of their socialist-communist-atheist 'dear leaders'.

    The brainwashing, for the few incredibly gullible, was successful.

  33. delphin says:

    "I'm here to make sure other injured victims get paid for the injuries of their past that your system caused"

    And, exactly how are you doing that "here"?  TMR is not the 'system'  that you claim is the cause of injustice.

    We 'here' obviously have no influence in the legal system that would make those determinations (rightly or wrongly).

    You are clearly 'here' for another reason, what is the real reason (aka Truth)?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      TMR is the system. A small catholic right wing part of that system but still the system. You do have influence in that system. Dolts like Dolan and Donahue, count on you and your ignorant support. If you stood up for victims in your churches rather than claiming we are for the most part lying about our abuse, what a change that would make.That's reason enough for any victim to post here.

      But you don't do that. instead you attack all our claims. You've attacked my claims and I've been compensated and therefore believed by the church and it's insurors.

      You've invented an attack by the media that isn't there. If you had sided with the victims rather than denying our existence as victims, from the get go; If your hierarchy had taken the victims side over the perpetrators, you would have had no problem, nothing to compensate a huge number of victims for. Why? There would have been less victims.


        YOU, personally, could have been saving your church by making it do the right thing i,e. compensate it's victims, first and formost. Instead of spending millions trying to find legal ways to escape your financial duties. You have done the exact opposite of the right thing.  Where's your morality there? Morality means doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do. No matter the price.

  34. Jim Robertson says:

    Again you lie. I've never said all catholic priests are perpetrators. Never.

    Unlike yourself, evidently, I can not read "vomit". Maybe it forms itself in to words miraculously for you.

    Why don't you calm down? What drives you to lie so?  You're hysterical.

  35. Publion says:

    Oh my.


    On the 11th at 630PM JR directs that “unless you have a credential for declaring people sane or not sane.  Shut up.” And yet he had previously on this thread precisely declared other commenters “insane”. Might we inquire as to his ‘credential”? (Time-saver here: JR earned numerous (perhaps ‘countless’) advanced-level degrees in all of the known Arts and also Sciences, which were awarded to him in awed tribute by the University of JR.)


    I or some of us “could be anybody” whereas for JR and “Dennis” … “you can look us up”. But a) it’s the material, not the ‘who’, that counts; b) we can look up personages on the internet but we have no way of positively establishing that the screen-name personae on a website are the same persons as the website persons (e.g. sometime commenter ‘tomdoyle’ and the actual Still-Father Tom Doyle); and c) of what possible use is a person’s background on a site where only the actual quality of the submitted material counts?


    We do not know if the two – JR and “Dennis” – are genuine victims or not. And surely the material they have submitted by them in that regard does not encourage the probability of such genuine-ness. Nor is there even any way that either of them can “know” that the other is indeed a genuine victim – thus what we see in play here is the old Abusenik deal: you believe me and ask no questions, and then I’ll believe you and ask no questions, and we can then get this show on the road as a tag-team.


    If JR is addressing me in the “you just imagine you’re a secret shrink”. JR can prove that for a cold hard fact, can he? (Time-saver: Of course he can’t; he just likes to run his mouth.)


    If he would care to specifically name the “myriad unprovable illusions that “I“ “believe”, he can do so.


    I don’t know whom he’s addressing, but he will have to put up an accurate quotation with a date-time stamp identifier as to when I have ever used the term “nuts”.


    No “real shrinks” are going to “roll through this place” because clinical assessment cannot legitimately be done without actually interviewing the patient I person. Thus, for example, declaring somebody a “sociopath” (a formal, if no longer much-used clinical diagnosis) would not constitute competent or legitimate clinical praxis. Does JR claim a professional credential to back-up his asserted  “sociopath” or “insane” characterizations?


    I have no idea what “hidden accusors” [sic] means.


    (By the way, it occurs to me that most word-processing programs have an automatic spell-check; you actually have to go back and override it for most common spelling-errors. I have to do so when directly quoting material from JR and “Dennis” with their numerous misspellings. Which – again – goes to my previous surmise that this misspelling tic is – by the very mechanism of word-processing programs – demonstrated to be deliberate. For whatever reason(s).)


    But I do note the ludicrous bit about his having “me arrested for attempting to practice medicine with out a license”. [sic]  I will not here adopt a persnickety literalist approach and interpret it as a serious and sober threat. Rather, it is clearly a double-whammy of unreliable whackery: a) there is clearly no cause for either arrest or civil action (as if, say, I had called him “fool” or “idiot” or “insane” or “sociopath”), and b) I have offered some impressions prompted directly from the dynamics involved in particular bits and gambits – and have explained the basis of my impressions at some length, but have never offered a specific clinical diagnosis, which is what professional clinicians do. Nonetheless and yet again: if you don’t agree with Abuseniks they rather quickly go for the threats and the intimidation, no matter how ludicrous they are revealed to be,  after only a moment’s serious consideration.


    Then (the 11th, 722PM) JR reminds us that he has “been compensated”. Thus he couldn’t care less what we think (“Your ‘buying’ the truth of my past means nothing to me”). But a) he thus reveals precisely the Abusenik approach of ‘victims’: they have gotten their swag and gotten out of town and that’s that and they don’t want to talk about it anymore (let alone have their allegations actually examined); and yet b) he continues to post further re-tellings of his ‘story’ (which, but of course, merely reduce to an ever-increasing extent the probability of his original allegations being veracious). Such confusions, I think, are exactly why he has been voted off the Abusenik island and continues to spew his eructations from his own little “self-appointed” rowboat.


    Lastly – for this comment of his – we see a) the self-serving fantasy  (shared even more grandiosely by Uber-Wig “Dennis”) that i) he is engaged in the great cause (“I’m here to make sure other injured victims get paid for the injuries of their past that your system caused”) which subtly requires that any empathetic reader presume b) that he is to be presumed without further question as numbered among the genuine “injured victims” (which, of course, has not only not been established but, instead, has actually rendered  increasingly improbable every time he talks about his story).


    The “suck” bit can remain up there with the rest of his clearly demonstrated predilection and preference  for sexual imagery and activity.


    Then (the 11th, 755PM) – and with the Wig of Bemused Innocence) he plaintively whines “am I going to get a degree from Anonymus U at the end of this?” [sic] Because, he continues, he “didn’t come here to see who has the most unseen degrees behind their un seen names” [sic]. But it has been JR who has on his own initiative gone and dragged in all sorts of historical bits (filched, I have no doubt, from Deschner’s Shoebox of 3x5s) about which factoidal-bits he actually has no larger grasp or comprehension whatsoever.


    And now he has to somehow get himself out of the corner into which he has – yet again – painted himself, and so he will toss ketchup at me (“frankly you’re not a good teacher”). It has never been my purpose to “teach” JR here, which  – as I have several times stated – is a mug’s game and a rum business to begin with and I won’t presume (grandiosely) my ability to achieve such a purpose. Rather, JR’s (and Deschner’s) bits require me to point out the actual historical state of the issues they raise – but pointing out that actual historical status questionis is something I proffer here for the readership, and not for JR.


    And I have claimed no “unseen degrees behind … un seen names”. [sic] I proffer material that is also accessible to the readership  and which has – as it turns out – revealed JR’s and Deschner’s bits to be Cartoons. He doesn’t like that but – characteristically – will thus take the low road and try to toss ketchup and plop rather than try to improve his own historical comprehension and competence. It is what it is. And is clearly a well-established pattern in his life.


    Nor has he ever offered any counter-material that has in any way demonstrated my material to be “b.s”. Nor has he ever offered any further material to establish that his own material is not a Cartoon and – to use his own term – “b.s.”.


    He is, I would say, a pathological plop-tosser (which is not, I note, a clinical diagnosis). Meaning that a) he has to toss plop and then b) has to somehow make it seem as if questions or counter-information is actually the real plop and his own material – and his own ‘cause’ – are simply the ‘truth’ and the ‘reality’, for which c) we must take his word – although he assures us that his word is all we need. Yah.


    How I have somehow caused “the days of Catholic pronouncements on morality being regarded as automatic fact are no more”? I am dealing here with ascertaining the factuality of his own (or Deschner’s) historical pronouncements. And I believe I have demonstrated here that those pronouncements of his (or Deschner’s) have failed utterly on the basis of history, and not on the basis of morality. I didn’t bring history into it here; he did. His competence in matter so of ‘morality’ has already been dealt with in prior comments on this site.


    But he has only the Playbook and the Playbook says: stick to your Talking Points. Thus he simply concludes this comment with a retreat to the (here irrelevant) bit about the compensation of victims (whose genuineness, alas, remains a historical problem for which he continues to proffer no workable solution whatsoever).


    And (the 11th, 1046PM) he asks if “he” – Pius XI, presumably – made a Concordat with the Soviet Union. The USSR did not accept the independence of Catholic education and thus no Concordat could be concluded – Pius ordered efforts toward that end to be stopped in the late 1920s after some years of effort. He condemned Communism in 1937 in his encyclical Divini Redemptoris; in that encyclical he also referred to what he had called “the terrible triangle” of the USSR, Mexico, and Spain – the three countries in which Communist and brutally anti-religious and anti-clerical regimes had taken control. That was the same year he issued the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge against the Nazis. (JR asks me this although clearly his own research could have given him the answer; am I thus his “teacher”?)


    Pius XI also condemned what he termed a “conspiracy of silence” on the part of the Western democracies, including the United States.


    Then (the 11th, 1057PM) JR tries to parse words – and not only English words but Latin words. Thus, he tries to insist, “’Unity of the Human Race’ is very very different from ‘The unity of human society’”. Well, not in the original Latin, where genus can mean either ‘race’ or ‘species’. Additionally – and this also works against JR’s juvenile effort to reduce the whole thing to a matter of “race”: if Pius called the entirety of Humanity a “race”, then how exactly would that be “racist” in any workable sense? Does JR not realize that the internal logic of his own assertion here would require another race besides the Human for Pius’s characterization to be even remotely “racist”? Because – I suppose I have to spell it out here for JR – if all of Humanity is one “race”, then there is no “racial” division unless you introduce some non-Human (and thus extraterrestrial) “race” that is distinct from the collectivity of the Human Race.


    How much more basic do we have to get here, with the fry-fly and plop-tosser mentality?


    Thus JR’s self-pitying and self-justifying whine (“But why bother”) here is revealed to be nothing more than that. Had he taken the effort to “bother” himself a bit more, he might have actually realized the gross incoherence of his own assertion here.


    But instead  – and characteristically – he asks himself why he should bother. Precisely the point I have been making for so very long.


    Then (the 11th, 1143PM) he condescends to ask: “Is there any thing in catholic history that you don’t find right?”. [sic] There are many things I would like to have seen done better, and many things I would like to see improved. But the thread of the comments on this site is primarily centered on the Catholic Abuse Matter (and its attendant Stampede) and also on such historical matters as other commenters raise. So I am not going to turn my comments on this site into a personal disquisition on what I think about the Church generally; I have stayed close to the material presented in the articles or in the comments, while trying to provide a deeper and broader comprehension of them. That JR now finds that he has painted himself into a corner because of his own insufficient historical comprehension as well as because of the (lack of probable) veracity of his assertions and claims (about the Catholic Abuse Matter  and Catholic history) is a problem that he has created for himself. That’s not my problem. And – we see once again – he tries to change the subject, having once again gotten in way over his head.


    But once again and in regard to a larger vision of the Abusenik mentality: will the demonstration of the utter inadequacy and inaccuracy of its Talking Points give that mentality even a moment’s pause to re-consider its own position? Not for a moment. Because it’s all about the Talking Points: just keep tossing them up there, regardless of whether they are true and probable or not.


    I submit that it is easily seen here how so many loose-electrons, scattered iron-filings, and pathological plop-tossers were given a home in the Stampede: they merely had to put their personal whackness in the service of the Stampede and they would be given a home in the Cause. And on the internet, nobody would know (they cartoonishly thought) that they were anything less than genuine victims with awesomely awful outrages to ‘report’. Yah.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      [This last reply will be allowed. - ed.]

      There is only one race, the human race. If people have used the word race as an excuse to classify their fellow man as "other" that's false. There are many breeds of chicken but a chicken's still just that a chicken. The same is true for humans.IMO

  36. TheMediaReport.com says:

    Thank you, everyone!

    This thread is now closed.

  37. KenW says:

    Jim, I can name 3 falsely accused priests in my diocese alone, and that is only counting the ones that are living and able to vigorously defend their innocence. If one isolates out of the total number accused that have only one sole accuser, no substantion, and the accused is long dead, that leaves only 6 perps in the last 50 years. 3 of those six were long ago given the choice of either a life of penance in an isolated monastery or total excommunication, and they disappeared. When I examine individual cases on their own merits across the country, I find very similar situations. SNAP is hyperbolic in approach, and their livelihood is the reason they are the way the are. Face it: what else is Clohessy qualified to do? Manage a Cinnabon?

  38. Jim Robertson says:

    My perpetrator McGloin is living last I heard. I was his sole accusor. In the early "90's the head of the Marianists (his order) admitted his crimes against me and offered me $12,000 for my injuries.

    I find it interesting Ken that you can examine individual cases across the country. How do you do that? Do you look up every case filed?

    If you've only had 6 abusive priests in your diocese over 50 years that would be quite the anamoly. L.A. has had a perp stationed in everyone of its parishes at one time or another.

    Have these "falsely accused priests" been proven to be falsely accused? And if so how?

    I can only say from personal experience that the amount of discernment in weeding out false claims is  extraordinary in the process it takes a claiment to bring his/her case forward.

    Again, regarding SNAP. isn't it odd that Blaine and Clohessy both "survivors"; both graduated catholic colleges and both are still active catholics. And there they are still "Blasting" the church here and there. Why would you "BLAST" your own institution unless you wanted to appear to be bomb throwing anarchists. Which is exactly how SNAP and the church want victims to be seen. Not as truely injured parties demanding compensation but "radicals" out to attack an "undefended" purely "innocent" church.

    No one knows who funds SNAP. Sure Jeffy Anderson donates in order to be recommended by SNAP to victims. But  the real creation of SNAP, supposedly done by Blaine, a  catholic college graduate and Mary Grant, a woman who never even went to high school in St. Louis is wacked. As likely to have occured naturally as a virgin birth. One day a real investigative reporter(s) will look into SNAP and Tom Doyle and Anderson and oh boy what a field day that reporter(s) will have. SNAP's church backed all the way. So is Bishop Accountability. It's annual budget comes from one man. No one knows why he pays or who he's paying for.

  39. KenW says:

    Bear with me Dave, I know that you have stated this thread closed, but something Jim said prompts me to get this out:

    I believe not all is well between Tom Doyle and SNAP. I read on SNAP's site their criticism of a brotherhood/monastery somewhere in the norhtern central US, and Doyle responded with a very lengthy response criticizing SNAP, how SNAP was mistaken and how the order did handle the situation properly and promptly. I should have ctrl a'd and ctrl c'd immediately, because SNAP promptly took it down. I have not seen a Doyle response to a SNAP press release since.  

    • Jim Robertson says:

      A false disagreement can be created to give validation to a construct of seperation and autonomy, regarding SNAP and Doyle. The SNAP illusion must keep all the balls in the air as in any counter intelligence effort.

      I attended a top secret very hush hush meeting  in Chicago on the 61st floor of a lawyers office in 2008. A,view of the lake like you were in a small airplane. It was a top secret meeting because 13+ people all had questions and issues with SNAP.

      Imagine, this meeting was chaired by fr. Tom Doyle co chaired by fr.. Bob Hoatson.

      Kay Ebling got me into that super elite meeting. Just one day before the SNAP conference opened.

      Also, please imagine our surprise when 40 minutes into the meeting in walks Barbra Blaine.

      I asked a question of her about funding and how policy is set for SNAP and who sets it, Doyle immediately jumped down my throat with a stop attacking Barbra line.( 2 f'ing questions I ask our self appointed "Survivors"  leader and Doyle ends the conversation before major answers were given) Then. Up pops Ms. Blaine says she's to busy to stay as if on cue (hint, hint) and she splits.. And that pretty much left the room in schock.

      And that my dear readers is the true and complete nature of the victims movement in the U.S. And how responsive it is to victims ;and now of course SNAP is international, catholic if you will, in it's scope, It's power and control over victims unquestioned and unchallanged except by activist victims who've had to deal  around their range of power, without their funding and their uninvestigation by the media. I'd love SNAP being investigated by the media but don't stop at the first false bottoms Doyle and Anderson, dig deep and see  "Something wicked this way comes" It is the true face of SNAP