***TheMediaReport.com SPECIAL REPORT*** Five Things the Mainstream Media Can Do To Improve Its Reporting of the Catholic Church Sex Abuse Story

David Clohessy : Barbara Blaine : John Manly : Jeff Anderson

Compadres (l to r): SNAP leaders David Clohessy and Barbara Blaine
and contingency lawyers John Manly and Jeff Anderson

For the last several years now, TheMediaReport.com has provided hundreds of examples of the media's biased and unbalanced coverage of the Catholic Church sex abuse story. And, unfortunately, our weekly posts provide only a small glimmer of the overall problem.

But the purpose of this site is to arm responsible journalists with the facts about sex abuse so as to improve their coverage and hopefully lower the incidence of sex abuse in our society.

What can the mainstream media do to improve its reporting of the Catholic Church sex abuse narrative? Here are five suggestions:

1. Provide context

Contemporaneous accusations of abuse against Catholic priests are extremely rare, recently averaging in the United States only eight per year even deemed "credible" by diocesan review boards. Almost all accusations against Catholic priests involve allegations from decades ago. Yet you would hardly know this from the media coverage, which almost always makes it appear that abuse is still an ongoing and current problem in the Church.

Meanwhile, sex abuse is happening unabated today in our families, our schools, and other institutions because the media is fixated only with old accusations of abuse in a single organization, the Catholic Church.

As we have relayed a number of times before:

  • rampant abuse and cover-ups continue today unabated in our nation's public schools, with estimates that there has been "more than 100 times" the rate of sex abuse in schools that there ever has been in the Catholic Church;
  • Hollywood still hands out coveted Emmy awards to accused child molesters and turns their collective backs on a child abuse problem that has been declared "rampant today"; and
  • Evangelical missions are said to be a "magnet" for sexual abusers today, yet rarely does the media make mention of this.

Yet the media continues to endlessly harp on the crimes committed many decades ago by priests.

2. Call out the bigots

Anne Barrett Doyle

Anne Barrett Doyle
from BishopAccountability.org

If a Jewish rabbi committed a crime, no reputable journalist would ever think of running to a noted bigot like David Duke and ask him what he thought of the story. But journalists never think twice about sprinting to the leaders of the anti-Catholic group SNAP to get an off-the-wall, hysterical soundbite about the "callous" Catholic Church.

One popular source for the media is SNAP's National Director David Clohessy. Clohessy is a former leader at the discredited activist group ACORN, and while he has demanded that the Church report every allegation of abuse to police no matter how flimsy or how long ago, Clohessy himself never reported to police back in the 1990s that his own brother Kevin, a Catholic priest, was sexually molesting innocent young boys. The irony that Clohessy is continually passing judgement on the Catholic Church is rich, but the media never notes it.

Then there is Barbara Blaine, SNAP's founder. Blaine was busted a couple years ago for writing a passionate letter to government licensing authorities on behalf of a friend who was arrested with over 100 images of kiddie porn on his computer.

And while these activists at SNAP, BishopAccountability.org, and the like claim their campaigns against the Church are simply about "protecting children," the undeniable fact is that almost all these groups have a not-so-hidden, radical, left-wing agenda, which they seek to advance under the pretext of fighting child sex abuse. Yet the media never makes mention of their real motivations.

3. Question the lawyers

The mainstream media invariably portrays Church-suing contingency lawyers as altruistic champions of the oppressed seeking justice for their clients. In truth, a number of Church-suing contingency lawyers are little more than buffoons in pinstripe suits in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

For starters, there is Southern California's John Manly, who, in addition to having a notable record of inflammatory remarks about priests, was cited in a shocking November 2012 news article with the claim that he was "fishing for victims" in the case of an accused priest.

Then there is the notorious Jeff Anderson, who is no stranger to readers of this site. Whether he is funneling cash to his friends at SNAP or filing another another kooky "stuntsuit" against the Vatican to get more media attention, the mainstream media never questions Anderson about his legal antics and his motivations.

4. Recognize the fraud

Suing the Catholic Church has become a multi-billion dollar industry just in the United States alone, so it should not come as a surprise to any clear-thinking person that outright fraud against the Church is occurring all the time.

Nearly half of all priests being accused of abuse today are long ago deceased, yet every time a journalist reports such an accusation, never does the journalist note the obvious: that a dead person can never defend himself and his reputation against a charge from many decades earlier.

Bizarre and mind-boggling claims of abuse are lodged against priests all the time, and even while there have been estimates that one half of accusations are "entirely false [or] greatly exaggerated," journalists continue to trumpet each and every claim handed to them without so much as a whimper of the usual journalistic skepticism.

If only accusations against Catholic priests received the same skeptical treatment as those against Woody AllenMichael JacksonRoman Polanski

Extremely rare is the brave journalist such as Vincent Carroll at the Denver Post, who fearlessly took on the dominant media narrative and declared:

"[F]raudulent or highly dubious accusations are more common than is acknowledged in coverage of the church scandals – although they should not be surprising, given the monumental settlements various dioceses have paid out over the years."

See also: TheMediaReport.com: Falsely accused priests.

5. Report the progress

It is indisputable that no other organization in the entire world comes even close to implementing the measures that the Catholic Church has taken in order to ensure the protection of children. In the United States, the Catholic Church has:

  • instituted a "zero tolerance" policy in which any credibly accused priest is immediately removed from ministry and law enforcement is notified;
  • trained well over 5 million children in giving them the knowledge and skills to protect them from abuse;
  • trained well over 2 million adults, including 99 percent of all priests, in recognizing signs of abuse;
  • conducted well over 2 million background checks, including those in the intensified screening process for seminarians and aspiring priests;
  • installed "Victim Assistance Coordinators" in every diocese, "assuring victims that they will be heard";
  • conducted annual independent audits of all dioceses to monitor compliance with the groundbreaking 2002 Charter for Protection of Children and Young People;
  • instituted in every diocese an abuse review boards – usually composed of child welfare experts, child psychologists, and abuse experts – to examine any claims of abuse.

Without a doubt, the Catholic Church in the 21st century is the model for other institutions to follow in the safeguarding of youth. Yet this fact is never mentioned by the media.


  1. Publion says:

    On the 18th at 1035PM JR either a) tries to deliberately change the subject to get himself out from under or else b) has a serious reading-comprehension problem.


    Can he demonstrate where I put words in his mouth? He raised the issue of “ritual sacrifice” and the discussion proceeded from there. Now – with it having been clearly shown that “ritual sacrifice” has no actual connection to anything we are discussing on this site – JR claims a) I put words in to his mouth and – waittttt forrrrr ittttttt – b) only now, after a number of comments, does he suddenly reveal that , come to think of it, he was only making “a metaphor”.


    Of course. How silly of anybody not to have realized that.


    But a metaphor is a figure of speech used to suggest a resemblance; so what then is the resemblance between the actuality of “ritual abuse” or ritual ‘sacrifice’ and its metaphorical application to the Church?


    Then he tries to further worm out from under by quickly trying this bit: the abuse victims (let’s not for the moment get into the ‘genuine’ or ‘otherwise’ problem) “were sacrificed” and the Church doth “still continue to sacrifice us, your victims”.


    So in what way is the “sacrifice” of the Mass or any other theological aspect of the Catholic concept of “sacrifice” metaphorically applicable to “us, your victims” (and let’s definitely not for the moment get into that characterization)? What conceptual similarity is there?


    I’m going to imagine that there is none. And that what we have seen here is, rather, a nicely vivid example of the Abusenik stitching-together of catchy words either because i) they are catchy and can manipulate readers’/hearers’ emotional responses or ii) because Abuseniks really don’t work with concepts and only work with the brute and simplistic similarity in the appearance of words. Which in this case works out this way: there is that awful old theological reality of ‘ritual sacrifice’, there is the Catholic term ‘sacrifice of the Mass’, and we want to present ourselves as being “sacrificed” … so let’s just tie them all together around that word ‘sacrifice’ because – doncha see? – it’s the same word all three times.


    This is what we are dealing with here.


    Nor have I said that “we don’t exist” (that “we” meaning victims in the Catholic Abuse Matter). I have said – and demonstrated – that there are substantial reasons for a) needing to distinguish between ‘genuine’ victims and victims ‘otherwise classifiable’; b) needing to establish i) which classification is accurate in any given case and ii) how many of each type exist; and c) therefore not presuming that all claims, stories, and allegations should automatically be presumed to be ‘genuine’ rather than ‘otherwise’ without any further assessment.


    But JR gives a bit away here: what probably does not exist is the Abusenik-asserted countless hordes of genuine victims. That “we”, I would say, does not exist, and I have explained the reasons for that conclusion at great length  comments on this site.


    The paragraph beginning “Ah!” dissolves almost immediately into un-intelligibility, always a reliable indicator with this commenter that he is, like certain undersea creatures, squirting clouds of ink to cover what he is up to.  


    Ditto the next paragraph.


    Then we get to SNAP. “It wasn’t hard for SNAP to form and rise”. I had said as much in prior comments on this thread; once SNAP had connected with Jeff Anderson – on Jeff Anderson’s initiative – then the dowdy and limited little bunch suddenly expanded as we now know it. (It wasn’t until Anderson met Blaine, as I said recently in comments, that SNAP’s career really took off; before that it was pretty much small potatoes.)


    We can leave hanging up there JR’s self-serving flourish as to how SNAP’s rise is “the most spectacular” rise “in the history of movements as [he has] ever seen”; I don’t get the sense from any comments on this site that he has seriously “seen” all that much – but it does sound nice, doesn’t it?


    But as for the rest of the material in that paragraph, I would have to say that JR simply supports my point: with Anderson (and the rest of the gang) behind it, SNAP has managed to pull off some stuff indeed.


    Then we are back to the Church-connection; SNAP is “priest-sponsored” [correction supplied]. We recall that this assertion is based on the Economus document which, after repeated requests, neither JR nor ‘Kay’ has seen fit to produce.


    But – to repeat what I went over a while back in comments – even if there is such a document, and even if Doyle did use the Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa as a front to erect SNAP as a tax-exempt organization (perhaps to hide his actions and his intentions from the Church), the historical fact remains that it wasn’t until Anderson met Blaine that SNAP actually became the SNAP we know today.


    And we also see, yet again and vividly, the level at which the Abusenik mind works: Doyle is a Catholic priest, the nuns were Catholic nuns, therefore the Church created and runs SNAP. We also saw this on this thread with the idea that SNAP’s staff are (nominally) Catholics, the Church is Catholic, therefore the Church runs SNAP. And also: the head of Bishop-Accountability is Catholic, the Church is Catholic, therefore the Church (apparently) runs Bishop-Accountability. Should people with thought-processes like this be allowed to operate heavy machinery?


    Whether we are also supposed to imagine that Donahue, Oprah, Katie Couric are Catholic and ditto … is for the readership to consider. Fr. Greeley’s relevance here is apparently that he was a “celebrity” (and, of course, Catholic), unless JR has some more relevant connection to explain.


    As for the claim that there has been no other group “to call” or that ‘victims’ have “heard of”: this characterization can as easily support the possibility that a) allegants were only interested in a group that could smooth their path to a tortie (and a lawsuit and an easy settlement check), or the possibility that b) no persons among the hypothetical myriad of ‘victims’ (genuine or otherwise, formally-declared or still-silent) have ever gotten or desired to get an alternative group (but without the tortie connections) together.


    Perhaps JR would like to contact Anderson for some pointers on how to go about the process. Of course, if the group were not going to have the tortie connections, then I wonder if there would be many among the (hypothetical) myriads who would care to sign-up. The tortie-connection seems to be a key motivator.


    And then JR doth “ask”:” Where’s SNAP’s matrix?” And I respond – yet again – that SNAP’s “matrix” is exo-skeletal, rather than endo-skeletal. Meaning: SNAP’s core is the connection-to and the support-of the torties and the media; if you actually look only at SNAP itself, there is no there there. This was the Anderson Strategy and it has worked rather effectively, in terms of its own objectives.


    But that “overnight” only occurred after Anderson met Blaine, regardless of whatever initial connection, via still-Father Doyle and the Sisters of Sinsinawa, that SNAP may have had to some Catholics.


    And that connection with Anderson would thus also explain where “all the money in the world” came from: from such donations as came to it from various persons over the years who actually thought that SNAP was what it said it was, and from the torties who most surely knew from the get-go that it was not.


    And why the Church would actually conceive-of, set-up, and run such an  as it has become … still remains to be explained by JR and any other Abuseniks who insist that the Church is behind it.


    As for the “Dennis” comment on the 19th at 1102AM: in order to Keep The Ball Rolling we now get a ‘report’ about incidents that happened in the Year of Grace One Thousand Nine-Hundred and Eighty-Eight, now over a quarter of a century ago. And at this point, what is ‘surprising’? And did the police not think it worthwhile in 1988 to extradite this man (who only worked in the AOLA for 10 months, according to the report) from Mexico? And have they not found him in the ensuing quarter of a century? Why not? And why is this ‘report’ (apparently only a day or two old now) considered ‘news’ at all at this point?


    The only real “surprise” in this report – such as there might be – is that it doesn’t really look into the questions at all.


    But, like Gomer Pyle, “Dennis” professes himself surprised. And no surprise there.

  2. Dennis Ecker says:


    Why do you continue to answer my questions with a question ?

    I will tell you though other church's have learned and continue to learn from your "institutions" mistakes.

    When however will your "institution" learn from its mistakes ? 

  3. Jim Robertson says:

    Have you ever met Jeff Anderson?  I don't think you'd find him very calculating or complex. He's much more of an appeaser really. He's really kind of run of the mill as lawyers go. Jeff Anderson isn't smart enough to create SNAP and niether are Blaine and Clohessy.  Father Tom Doyle, however, is smart enough and did in fact invent committees to control victims. One was Snap; one was Votf. Committees who authenticated each other to be what they say they were. Sans any proof. Other than catholic vouching.( Not exactly historically bankable) imho

    How do I know Anderson isn't a creation of the church as well? .

  4. Jim Robertson says:

    The church like any super rich corporation bets on both sides in a contest; that they might win no matter what. But the church couldn't trust victims to pick our own reps and legal leaders. They made sure like Nixon against McGovern they were running against the perfect candidate for them to beat. Jeff Anderson hasn't exactly been poping off fireworks in the legal dropping of limitation satutes has he? How many more suits do you see on the horizon, if people can't sue? No help for victims.

    Where has SNAP held national rallies supporting mass settlements for victims nationwide and worldwide . You haven't seen any because they don't. Why not? They talk about everything else but. Jeff Anderson only enters the picture where suits can be filed. No suits. No lawyers.  No Jeff Anderson, Corporate church wins. Jeff Anderson always connecting victims to his hand picked lawyers in state after state. Church over all wins. Corporate church basicly picking  it's oppositions'  entire legal team in effect. Thanks to SNAP. This isn't about Anderson getting clients this is about SNAP controlling the victim tap for lawyers. So lawyers kiss SNAP's butt, The lawyers know where the clients are and who has them all sewed up: SNAP. Now the question is did SNAP just luck into that catbird seat or was it created to be first and formost the controller of victims in the market place?. A) there isn't that much luck in the world and B) Blaine and Clohessy weren't capable of pulling that off. They don't have the smarts; and niether does Anderson. Doyle however does have the smarts.

    • Delphin says:

      Pretzel-logic, again. Snap is Church, is VOTF, is B-A, is Doyle, is Anderson, yada, yada, yada.

      Yep, those faithful Catholics are the "low IQ'd"-

  5. LDB says:

    What is wrong with being 'anti-catholic'? Some people are using this term quite a bit lately in their comments. They use 'anti-catholic' like it is a slur. 'Anti-catholic' just seems to describe a position or opinion that is opposed to that or those of the catholic church and her faithful adherents. Catholicism, when effective, rots the mind and turns people into super-obedient followers.

    I am anti-catholic and I encourage others to take that position as well. “The lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.” Psalm 23 Well, shepherds only keep sheep safe until the slaughter. The shepherd does not just magnanimously ensure that that the sheep have a great life, free from danger. The sheep are used for their product and then eaten. Want not, little sheep.

    If you think that there are significant numbers of falsely accused priests and significant numbers of scamming accusers then you are deluded. You are just willfully reading the data wrong. You are biased, not wanting it to be true, and wanting only to protect the church and your faith. And that state of fooling oneself comes easily to catholics because you have to be fooling yourself about what is real to be catholic in the first place.

    Why are catholics trying so hard to manufacture their own persecution right now? Well, the religion itself tells you to expect to be persecuted for your beliefs. Suffering and martyrdom are praised and are pleasing to god in the holy books. Be happy then for your suffering and persecution! Rejoice, rather than complain about anti-catholicism. Offer these things up to god that you may be pleasing to the lord. Be pro-human-suffering and I will remain staunchly anti-catholic and wholly without divine supervision.

    • Delphin says:

      Please replace the word "Catholic" in LDB's latest bigoted rant with "Islam/Muslim, Homosexual or Jewish" and let's put it out there for all to see if there is any push-back.

      I predict there would be much.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Please replace the name Delphin with cardinal Egan or George or Billie Donahue and you'll see that old time religion raise it's "lovely" victim burning head. Morality and truth avoid you, cardinal Delphinium.

  6. Delphin says:

    What else Catholic 'priests' do…

    • Delphin says:
    • Jim Robertson says:

      How about beating gay Russians with whips. That's what orthodox priests do.

    • Delphin says:

      If an Orthodox priest did do such a horrendous thing (unlikely to be factual), it would acting in direct opposition of his religion. Same goes for priests that abuse minors, it is contrary to our most basics beliefs, as opposed to the beliefs of a too-significant portion of the LBGT[?] community, radical Islamists and most Atheistic societies. Look how far Belgium has come since shedding the rigors of Christianity – they can now legally kill their post-born children. Woo-hoo!

      What these Ukrainian priests are shown doing (proof, you know what that is, right?) is using their bodies as barriers to the violence between the protestors and your friends in power, the Commies.

      That is what both Catholicism and Orthodoxy demands.  Unlike whatever it is Atheism, Socialism/Communism and Homofascism claims, it never leads its adherents to undertaking these fully Christian acts of love and courage.

  7. Publion says:

    On the 19th at 1147PM “Dennis” complains to ‘Delphin’ that she keeps answering his questions with a question.


    Why would that be? Perhaps because he so very rarely provides any support for his assertions, and thus automatically engenders questions as to some corroboration or source-material. Is that too a “surprise”?


    And as if to demonstrate the problem for the home-audience, “Dennis” then issues the assertion that “I will tell you though other church’s have learned and continue to learn from your ‘institutions’ mistakes” [sic]. And might “Dennis” wish to a) name a couple-three of those “church’s” and  b) demonstrate just what steps they have taken because of what they “continue to learn” from the Catholic Church and perhaps even c) demonstrate from his source material that such “church’s” have actually surpassed the Catholic Church’s improvements?


    Or are we simply to be left – as so very often – with merely an unsupported assertion by an interested party?


    Then on the 10th at 1209AM JR asks (me, I suppose) if I “have … ever met Jeff Anderson”? Not personally, no. But I have the bulk of D’Antonio’s book, which was written with Anderson’s extensive input, and I have the record of the Anderson Strategies and how they have worked out in actuality.


    What do we have from JR? Merely the assertion – based on who knows what – that Anderson is “much more of an appeaser really”. Really? Whence this bit of information? Because it certainly doesn’t match anything seen in D’Antonio’s book or Anderson’s own recollections or Anderson’s record of achievement in the Stampede.


    And “he’s really kind of run of the mill as lawyers go”? This is an attorney who created the template for the Stampede with the Anderson Strategies and the lawsuits based on those Strategies have racked up at least two-billion or three-billion in settlements and fees. And this is, in JR’s informed opinion, “run of the mill”?


    And then and then and then: “Jeff Anderson isn’t smart enough to create SNAP and neither are Blaine and Clohessy”. First, Anderson didn’t “create” SNAP (although his Strategies – as D’Antonio relates – clearly required such an organization). Second, he saw such a necessary organization ready-to-hand when he assessed SNAP, and made it his business to have that talk with Blaine.


    But JR has put this gobbledygook together merely as a lead-in for trying to justify his ‘Catholic’ connection: the still-Father Tom Doyle “however, is smart enough and did in fact invent committees to control victims”. “Committees to control victims”? What are these “committees” that are suddenly mentioned for the first time so late in the discussions on this site?


    And how actually does one “control” victims (genuine or otherwise)? These individuals couldn’t start their own group or go to the media and say that their needs were not being met and they were being used by a front-organization that was not at all what it said it was? None of the still-uncounted victims could do anything along these lines? Seriously?


    And when it comes to “committees who authenticated each other to be what they say they were” [sic], is that not precisely what Abuseniks do? To repeat my characterization: I’ll believe you and won’t ask any tough questions about your story, and you’ll believe me and won’t ask any tough questions about my story, and we’ll all ride this gravy-train together.


    But what difference would such mutual-authentication be, if the media didn’t largely buy the whole script and amplify it, to the exclusion of any other alternative possibilities as to what these groups were?


    And are we also then to believe that SNAP, VOTF, and Bishop-Accountability are all in it together, and as tools of the Church? I can certainly believe that there is a synergy between and among them, but that is precisely what Anderson envisioned in his Strategies. And it has worked rather well up until now.


    But – of course – since they are all “catholic” (in JR’s piling-up of his conceptual blocks on the floor here), then that proves (to his satisfaction apparently) that the Church set them up and runs them all. Ovvvvv courssssssse.


    And is it really wise to introduce the thought of “historically bankable” when so many of the stories, claims and allegations that we have had a chance to examine suffer from so many evidentiary and credibility problems? But that “bankable” is a fine give-away.


    And in conclusion JR leaves us with the question as to how he is supposed to know that the Church didn’t create Anderson as well. And let’s just leave that bit right up there where it was put.


    Then a few minutes later at 1235AM JR now theorizes that “The church like any super rich corporation bets on both sides in a contest”. In a “contest” where if one of the sides wins then the “corporation” stands to lose billions? Seriously? In a “contest” where this “corporation” is not simply a disinterested party betting on which of the sides wins, but instead is the Party Defendant and not simply a third-party observer?


    And why would the Church even think it could “trust victims” – who, we recall, had gone to the torties and into the legal forum?


    Anderson has been busy enough simply with what we have in the public record, even unto now with his most recent (somewhat fizzled) gambit in Minneapolis. What influence he is exercising off-the-record i(in regard to weakening SOLs and other matters) is obviously not known, but is it at all probable that he is not working off-the-record as well as in those made-for-TV gambits that are on the record? Let the readership consider.


    And again, “what help for victims” is possible in any of this by Anderson or the torties (if my theory is correct) or even by the Church (for which the possibility of running therapy groups for victims is fraught with complications)? And given even JR’s admission that in-gathering victims is “next to impossible”, how can he even raise this point?


    Why no “national rallies”? I would say because a) it was the legal objective of filing lawsuits (and getting lots of nice settlement money) that governed all SNAP’s actions. And because b) any such undertaking as a “national rally” would run two hugely dangerous risks for the Anderson Strategies (and the Plaintiff/allegants): i) the danger of losing control of the script and the message would be tremendously increased if one tried to put together a “national rally” and ii) there might very well not be more than a few who would show up (think of the embarrassing non-turnout at SNAP’s 2012 10th anniversary world-celebration conference marking the Boston Globe’s initiation of its own version of the Stampede: would the Stampede have benefitted from demonstrating just how few ‘victims’ were actually involved in this whole Thing? And did many of the 11 or 12 thousand already-remunerated allegants show up for that world-conference? By amazing coincidence, no.


    “No suits. No lawyers. No Jeff Anderson, Corporate church wins” [sic]. But there most certainly have been suits, there have been lawyers, there really is a Jeff Anderson and the “corporate church” has paid out billions. This is a “win”? In what universe is this a “win”?


    The rest of this 1235AMcomment is simply a further riff on the phantasm that the Church controls the torties and Anderson and SNAP and all the rest. Readers may contemplate the lucubrations as they will.


    SNAP – in my theory of it – was raised-up from its small-potatoes existence by Anderson and there was no “luck” involved. But SNAP is merely a front and is not actually in any “catbird seat” at all.


    Thus then back to Doyle and again, readers may contemplate the probabilities as they will.


    Then at 957AM on the 20th ‘LDB’ returns with more than a (so revealing) one-or-two-liner.


    He is “anti-Catholic” and apparently proud of it and that’s his right and that’s that.


    But his effort to pooh-pooh the possibility or probability of “significant numbers of falsely accused priests and significant numbers of scamming abusers” turns out to be merely the epithetical myah-myah that if you believe that “then you are deluded”.


    And “you are just willfully reading the date wrong”. What “data” would that be, pray? And – passing over various riffs on the original epithet – we find absolutely no discussion or revelation of whatever “data” it is upon which he bases his assertion.


    But, we are assured by ‘LDB’, this “state of fooling oneself comes easily to catholics because you have to be fooling yourself about what is real to be catholic in the first place”. Ovvvvv courssssssse. And we see again the Abusenik predilection for simply piling their favorite conceptual (or factoid-al) blocks together to make what they are satisfied is some sort of recognizable structure. Readers may make of it what they will.


    Then a further riff on “persecution”, apparently reaching back to the early Church and “martyrdom”. But nothing whatsoever to address the issues and questions and problems under discussion here.


    ‘LDB’ is certainly welcome to live his life “without divine supervision” if he wishes to try it. But I could recommend the supervision of a good teacher, perhaps in the art of conducting a competent analysis and constructing a credibly-grounded and credibly-expressed hypothesis.


    If he cares to. And if not, not.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I, if I am crazy regarding the truth about SNAP etc., am not alone.

      Other grown up functioning adult victims across America feel the same way about SNAP as I do.

      Victims who haven't connect the SNAP dots, as we have and who have worked "for' SNAP hate them as well. Just because of the way victims are controled and treated by SNAP.

      Now explain that please. Why is it the "oldest and largest survivors' organization" is loathed by the very people it purports to represent? Are all victims are so f'd up we no longer know what's good for us?  I don't think so. I think we know exactly what we don't like. And very very few victims like SNAP. I know our feelings are valid.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You are paying ,the few victims you do pay next to nothing or nothing itself. SNAP 's fraud has saved you money that's why it do what it do.

      You've nowhere near paid all your victims. Nor do you intend to obviously. And that's thanks in large part to SNAP. Contrary to any myth otherwise.

  8. Dennis Ecker says:


    I don't lose sleep over it. The true anti-catholics are those who call us that. If they were so concerned about how their church is portrayed in the media and by the world they as the parishioners and the foundation of the catholic church would do something about it.

    Instead we hear the constant whining when their church is dragged over the hot coals and they act like children when negative stories hit the media.

    I look at it this way. Those who post here and call us what they may,  do not realize they are their worst enemy of the their church.

    They remind me of the story Peter and the wolf. They have told so many untruths nobody believes them anymore.



    • Jim Robertson says:

      Dennis and LDB thanks for your share. In a dogmatic religion,( redundant I know) You are either with 'em or agin 'em.

      In L,A. In Chicago in Australia throughout the world city after city country after country the corporate catholic church held it's priests and it's "image" more important, more valuable than it's children. It holds it's wealth more valuable than it's own children. What can you do with an institution that is so inherently vicious and corrupt? (P and D being prime examples here of both)  Does society allow it to continue with no punishment? That seems to be what's happening.

      Why did your church need to change it's behavior and set new standards for itself (that may or may not be working now)? You had too WE made you do it. Do you thank us victims for helping protect your kids? Oh hell no!  Instead you call us liars; thieves; frauds; anti catholic bigots. [edited by moderator] Hypocrites.


  9. Dennis Ecker says:

    I have learned within a little of a few hours or within a few days the latest, the archdiocese of Philadelphia and its leader archbishop chaput is expected to announce the PERMANENT removal of two more priests accused of sexual abuse.

    fr. john paul,  some may remember as the priest who was allowed to remain at Our Lady of Calvary Church in Philadelphia with accusations of sexual abuse, and the parishioners and children of the parish were kept in the dark by the archdiocese for some time not knowing of the possible danger that walked among them.

    fr.paul was only removed from ministry after his resignation stating so-called stress.

    Not to rub salt into a widening wound but is this how Delphin defines "admitting a problem and cleaned it up" ?

    In addition fr. james collins will also be removed based on accusations of abuse 40 years ago, and I know some are tilting their head and saying 40 years ago, but should it ever matter if it was 4 minutes, 4 hrs, 4 years or 40 years ago ? I say no.

  10. Dennis Ecker says:
    • Delphin says:

      These numbers could increase exponentially, what are the rules for claimants- just throw your name into the hat of alleged-victims and off you go, you're on the list!

      Anyone knocking on your door, yet?


    • Publion says:

      On the 21st at 209AM “Dennis” gives us a link to a new MPR article. I recommend it to readers. 

      We recall that a while ago there was a dust-up in Minneapolis/St. Paul (hometown of Jeff Anderson’s legal enterprise) in which a woman left her official position in the Archdiocesan sex-abuse oversight office, and then suddenly a computer once owned years ago by an accused cleric was reported to have been recovered with some or all of a pornography stash on it; which somewhat iffy evidentiary material was almost immediately supported by the purchaser of that computer years ago suddenly coming-forward and claiming that he had just recalled that he had made a complete and true copy of the pornography stash but had stashed it somewhere back then and had forgotten until just recently (a story which raised so many more questions than it answered); then not so long ago the entire issue was suddenly dropped, but the police official in charge of all this said that she was hoping to get the Archdiocese (hereinafter: AOM) to let her see more documents. 

      We now get an MPR article (linked-to here by “Dennis”) which seems to be the fruit of whatever talks were lubricated by that still-not-explained soap-opera about the pornography-stash. (This MPR article does not mention that odd and iffy little soap-opera, which it had a few months ago plastered all over its pages and airwaves, at all.)

      This MPR article now claims that whereas the AOM had previously (in 2004 or so) said that it had received 33 credible allegations of child sex abuse since 1950, there is now a list that indicates 70 (69 priests and 1 deacon) in that time period (none of the allegations dating after 1988). Thus double the number previously reported by the AOM; the AOM had dealt with these “allegations and suspicions … since 1950”. 

      Of those 69 priests, 11 were taken out of priesthood, 20 are dead, 15 are still priests although some are under various types of restriction, 17 are retired, and 6 are in a status ‘unknown’. The article also says it has its own list of a dozen more priests in “private lists and memos” but can find no information about “their alleged crimes”, only that they appeared on this or that informal or unofficial list as “possible child abusers”. 

      The article opines that in some instances the AOM simply “lost track of allegations” – but when that might have happened in the 64 years since 1950 it doesn’t say. 

      Then, slyly, the article says that “as the legal stakes climbed” (i.e. the Stampede) the AOM “demanded evidence that was nearly impossible to obtain”, and gives the examples of “medical records from the 1960s”. This surely could not be surprising, once an allegant had chosen to go the legal-forum route. 

      And also (again, the article gives no timeframe as to dates) that at some point the AOM stopped writing up lists. No doubt a consequence of defense and Insurer counsel insistence as part of the legal defense strategy required – again – in the legal-forum. 

      The article wants you to take away from this that parishioners had been led to believe that the sex-abuse problem was less (33) than it actually was (69). The fact that there is no timeframe given for when parishioners were told, such that at any point some of the accused priests had either been removed from ministry or had died, doesn’t help to get a clear picture. 

      The article itself notes that there were many “lists” – some in email format, some jotted down on bits of paper, some lists unsigned and unsupported, some merely referenced in memos, some in filing cabinets and some on computers – and that “police had never seen” any of them. Nor apparently, had very many other persons (adults, parents, relatives, so forth) in whatever timeframe in the past 50 years, gone to the police. (More about the police below.)

      Curiously, the DA says he will not be convening a Grand Jury and the police will not be investigating. Which seems odd, unless the DA realizes that what may result will be merely an embarrassing repeat of the Philly debacle. 

      The article reports an AOM settlement from 2004 “between an alleged victim” in the matter of a priest, which settled for the amount of $42,000, for an allegation dating to somewhere in the 1950s or 1960s (nothing more specific). And a 2002 letter in the file about somebody’s sister’s suspicions about a priest who died in 1969. 

      The article gives a chunk of blurb-y space to the comments of that former female official, although without mentioning anything about her involvement in the recent soap-opera about the pornography stash.  And her role in all of this from the beginning (with that porn stash bit) still seems curiously significant, although nowhere have I seen the actual dynamics of that role in all of this clearly and specifically ‘reported’. 

      There is a 2002 memo from an AOM official who – reasonably enough – created three categories for (16) accused priests: i) “allegations are admitted and the Charter clearly applies”; ii) “allegations are either disputed or the facts are unclear or unresolved”; iii) “those in which the facts are fairly clear but it not clear whether the conduct complained of is sufficient to warrant” removal from ministry. Fair enough. 

      The article immediately goes on to say that “some of the names on the list” [which list?] are now well known” but two of the accused have never been publicly revealed before. But if they are only “accused” then is it right to publish their names? Even the article admits that it isn’t going to be publishing their names “because no information exists in the public records or the [AOM] documents”.

      All this is included under that female ex-official’s bit in the article because – it clearly appears – she was the original source for the knowledge of their existence, which she said she merely “stumbled upon” (in her half-decade tenure as a major abuse official). 

      Then the article repeats itself with an interesting twist: it was only in 2013 that the AOM “was growing wary of lists”. Which is rather late in the game for a ‘cover-up’. 

      She resigned, we are informed, in April of 2013 and “approached MPR News with her story in July”. 

      Then the article gives a bit of itself away when it mentions that whereas in 2004 the AOM had claimed there were 69 credible-allegations of abuse since 1950, yet in 2006 an “internal chancery document” lists “180 victims” – although up until now the article had been rather careful with using “alleged”; the article thus deploys that Stampede old sleight-of-hand where an allegant is quietly equated with a “victim” as if the fact had been demonstrated. 

      The article rather dismissively refers to various terms such as “marginal behavior”, “substantiated claims”, and “credibly accused” – all used in various AOM documents – as nothing more than a “jumble of official-sounding language”. And here we see the usual Abusenik/Stampede ploy of considering any effort at trying to comprehend the problem (or deal with legal complexities) as mere babble designed, but of course, to obstruct ‘justice’ for the allegants. And although these are internal memos among persons who no doubt are familiar with the terms, the article huffs that there is no “definition or explanation”, as if nobody involved knew what the terms meant in the normal exchange of memos and discussions. But these were AOM staffers and officials used to dealing with abuse matters, simply discoursing among themselves. Imagine, say, that the MPR was doing an article about aircraft based on internal corporate memos and huffed that nobody in the memo cloud had bothered to explain terms like “fuselage”, “aileron” or “nacelle”. 

      The article says that nobody at the AOM will tell them how abuse cases were evaluated. But if that means in the past 64 years since 1950, then I am not going to be surprised if nobody alive today at the Chancery can actually answer that question. 

      The MPR has only been able to find, it says, four priests who have been criminally convicted of child sexual abuse. What this says about the police or the people who might have simply called the police, in the past 64 years, the article doesn’t care to say. 

      But there is a 1988 memo in which an AOM official mentioned his personal yardstick and it certainly seems more than generous to an allegant: the story “seemed credible” to him, the allegant made the report at the request of “a reputable therapist”, the story included “sufficient accuracy of detail”, the allegant was willing to have her name released to the accused, and the allegant did not seem motivated by “personal vindictiveness” – which is generous indeed. 

      But then an interesting bit of media legerdemain: with the stakes now “high”, “victims now needed to prove their claims” (note again the use of “victims” as if that status were established). Further, Church officials “created difficult, vague and shifting criteria for an allegation to be deemed credible”. Might this have been in part because the definition of ‘abuse’ and ‘rape’ were themselves constantly shifting? Or because as the Stampede picked up steam further legal considerations had to be taken into account given the near-certainty of lawsuits? Or because Rome had said that if priests were going to be laicized canonically then certain canon-law requirements had to be met to insure the rights of the priest as well as the interests of the allegant? Or simply because AOM defense counsel or Insurer counsel were aware of the ever-increasing possibility of false-claims as the word spread – amplified by the media – of just how much money could be gotten with a story and a tortie? 

      And then and then: the article then does some pre-emptive work by explaining that in so many abuse cases there simply isn’t any actual evidence: “Most claims of child sexual abuse, in the church or elsewhere, lack direct evidence”. How very true, as I have often noted. But the Stampede solution, as the Victimist solution, to this problem (i.e. if there is no evidence of a crime, how can a crime be officially declared to exist?) is to weaken the evidentiary standards on the daffy yet ominous legal theorizing that … what? That allegants are always or almost-completely credible and truthful? That evidence isn’t necessary? That an interested party’s memory or story qualifies as evidence? Is that sound legal thinking and will any of it it generate sound legal results? 

      But the article quickly works to manipulate by ignoring all that and going straight ahead to remind its readers of “the horrors” of child abuse. As I have said, rats aboard a sailing-ship at sea are not a good thing, but setting fire to the hull in order to flush out the rats – claiming that the “horrors” of rats justify such a tactic – is hardly a sound or workable procedure and is bound to produce some very bad results. 

      And then it continues: “Once out in the open, few of those memories could withstand the scrutiny of the archdiocese or its private investigators”. Neat, but truly slimey. Would those “memories” be able to withstand police interrogation? Defense counsel questioning under oath in a trial? But the article tries to paint the situation such that only the AOM or Church lawyers (and their “private investigators” – bwa-ha-haaaaa) were the problem here. And we have already seen here on this site that some stories cannot even withstand the mild questioning in comments. 

      The article then goes on to discuss the case of a man who approached the AOM in 2006 about alleged abuse he suffered “in the early 1990s”. The man – “now 32”  and apparently recently interviewed by MPR – was upset to find that the (female) AOM victim staffer asked him for some “psychological records” rather than go out and hunt-up more possible allegants. When he refused, the AOM deemed his allegation not credible. He felt that the AOM was “trying to gather information on my drug and alcohol problems” – which apparently to him was not what he wanted to see happen. Understandably so, but if you are going to lodge an allegation and expect official action but without official investigation, then what do you expect? 

      The allegant’s father felt that the AOM was trying to “find fault with his family”. Understandably so. 

      The AOM did, however, report the case to the local police, but  – waittttt for ittttt –“police didn’t investigate”. 

      The father and son wondered why the police never contacted them (and yet they did nothing further to check on things over the course of half a decade), they now say, and were surprised to hear that the police had closed the case because “officers couldn’t locate the victim”. Now that is a ‘report’ that actually creates far more questions than it answers. 

      But amazingly, the case was re-opened just a few weeks ago. Amazing coincidence, as we so often see in the Abuse Matter and the Stampede. 

      The article quotes the Archbishop’s letter stating that since the police and an independent investigator could find nothing to corroborate the allegations, then the priest remained in good standing. This letter from 2010, by the way, was from the Archbishop to another Ordinary, endorsing the priest for temporary service in that Diocese and fully noting the allegation and the results. 

      The article closes with that father saying that he wishes the Church would stop using phrases like “credibly accused”. Understandably so. 

      But then but then but then but then but then: It turns out that Jeff Anderson had received all of these documents “under court seal” in 2009 (meaning that he could read them but he couldn’t make them public). So Anderson needed some sort of pretext for making them public – because if he did he just might drum up some further Stampede business. 

      And then, just a couple of months ago in late 2013 (just about the time of that porn-cache soap-opera that has suddenly disappeared) a local judge not only removed the seal but ordered the AOM to release the documents publicly. (Didn’t Anderson already have them in his possession?) 

      The judge also – most helpfully, some might say – ordered the AOM to publicly list the names of all “priests accused since 2004 of child sexual abuse”. Note that the mere accusation or allegation is enough to get a name published. Unsurprisingly, the AOM says it will appeal that Order. 

      But it gets better. In a hyperlink which the article does not further discuss, it turns out that last May the MN State Senate and House voted affirmatively on SOL extensions. The Governor signed the Bill into law on June 5, 2013. The Bill opens up a 3-year window for past abuse claims, and for current claims “going forward” there is no SOL whatsoever. Anderson went on record in May 2013 as saying he is looking forward to more cases being filed in MN. 

      So then: In 2013 in Jeff Anderson’s hometown, that female AOM official – after six years – suddenly decided she would quit in April; the State’s legislators were already considering SOL extensions (I won’t call them ‘reforms’) at that time – passed and signed into law by June; in July she went to MPR; later in the year we got the iffy soap-opera about the porn-cache which then suddenly disappeared and nobody officially involved now wants to talk about either the cache or the disappearance of the matter any longer; and from that (drummed-up pretext?) a local judge then released previously-sealed records that Anderson had but could not divulge or publicize, and for icing on the cake the judge made the AOM release them (rather than force Anderson to look like his hands were too deep into things by merely releasing what he already had in his office?). 

      And will all of this amazing coincidence provide a jump-start to what perhaps had been a less-than-sufficient prospective-client response to last summer’s lifting of the SOL parameters? 

      We should stay tuned. 

    • Delphin says:

      Let's not forget who and what is the Gov. Dayton of Minn-


  11. LDB says:

    The data (I did, in my last post, write 'data' and not 'date') are in or at least referred to in the TMR article above. Roughly half of accusations are falsely brought? In order to get to that sort of number/percentage, you have to define most, if not all, 'unsubstantiated' claims as 'false' claims. David Pierre and TMR do this. Defining or redefining terms this way is deeply misguided. But it is what must be done in order to defend and preserve the church and the faith. Clearly, I see why interested catholic parties would want/have to do this. The church (bishops/cardinals/popes) has not been so bold as to do this sort of math publicly but it has 'thanked' those who have done it on her behalf.

    As for catholicism and my alleged need for a teacher/supervisor, I grew up with this religion's teaching and mentorship. It did not work out for me. So I will politely pass on your sincerely-offered advice, revenend 'Publion'.

    'Delphin', I say the same things about islam and judaism. In fact, I think I have said that I am anti-religion and anti-theistic on TMR. It does not matter because I will say it again and again. All religion is mythology. At best, it is a waste of time. You are welcome to it. But at worst, it divides and hurts people. And if any muslim or jew attacked me or anyone 'pushed back' on me for saying such things, they would be proving my point. Homosexuals do not fit properly into your list. Homosexuality is not a religion like christianity, catholicism, islam, or judaism. In contrast to religion, homosexuality is (a) real and (b) another form of love.

    • Delphin says:

      Your definitions of homosexuality as '…not a religion..', and that it is "real'" and "another form of love" are highly debatable philosophically, medically/psychologically and emotionally. These are not settled matters.

      And, you won't submit your bigoted comments on either Judaism of Islamism on any of those religions sites, but, is it ever-so-safe to state your brave position against those religions on a Catholic site (are you wearing your flack-jacket?).  Specifically, what are your criticisms of those religions (and, please, do be as graphic and pointed as you are about Catholicism)?

      Regardless of your opinion that religion is 'a waste of time', it is not relevent to the Catholic Church abuse matter, so, do try to stick to the question at hand.

      The question is: regarding the minor abuse matter, is the Catholic Church being treated fairly (fact-based, free of bias) by the media (TMR's main focus), and overall by the prevailing culture?


  12. Jim Robertson says:

     P,  Why do you spend so much of your, rather limited, time left, (I think you have some age on you) defending SNAP as being what it says it is? To prove I'm crazy or to re-enforce, the Doyle game plan?

    Why would so many active catholics, Jason Berry to Barbra Blaine to Tom Doyle to Jeff Anderson, why would they create and support a victim's organization that victims don't like?  A victims' group that doesn't work for the benefit of victims but works for them? How does that fit into your mythology that it's anti catholic bigots who are attacking the church? It doesn't.

    LDB, Dennis; Kay; myself all victims All no longer catholic. But SNAP; VOTF; Bishop Accountability are all catholic led all the time. Please tell me the odds of that occuring "naturally"?

    • Delphin says:

      There are dissident catholics and faithful Catholics, doncha know?

      Nuns on the Bus, NC Reporter, Doyle, Blaine, Connell, etc. = dissident catholics. They need to splinter-off and go add another 'christian' denomination to the thousands of others. Not Catholic.

      And, as you know, we have the same situation with citizen-patriots;  we have patriots and then we have dissident (anarchists, revolutionary, unpatriotic) Communists/Socialists/Fascists/autocrats/theocrats – which is thoroughly un-American.

      Get it?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Delphin are you homosexual? If not then homosexuality is absolutely none of your [edited by moderator] business.

  13. Jim Robertson says:

    I said Delphin, that believing in the devil and demons is only for the low I.Q'd.

    • Delphin says:

      Careful now, you could have 'lot's of 'splainin' to do' with another oppressed, entitlement group here-


    • Delphin says:

      Following the [typical] illogic of the 2/22 @ 5:16 post, unless you're a faithful Catholic, you should stay out of Catholic Church affairs.

      If victim-claimants had gone to the civil authorities, as they were obligated upon the commission of the claimed criminal and/or civil victimhood, none of this 40-50 year hence persecution would be happening now.

      The fact is that homosexuals are responsible for approximately 85% of these crimes of various sexual trangressions against minors, so, we can't ignore that factual element of the Catholic Church abuse matter. Crimes were committed as a result of the expression of the homosexual sin, not the sin of heresy or theology – these priests didn't trangress Catholic dogma or doctrine, they trangressed moral, ethical and civil sexuality laws.

      Beleive me, I wish we could take the homosexual nature out of the Church, or at least infuse the Catholic nature in the homosexual. If either of these goals were possible, we'd never had seen the expression of this despicable problem in our Church, or in the greater secular society.

      So long as crimes of illicit and/or depraved homosexuality plague all civilized society, it is all our business.

  14. Publion says:

    On the 21st at 1042 JR avoids any problems with material in his recent prior submissions by simply rehearsing his overall vision of the Catholic Abuse Matter. He then claims that “P and D” are “prime examples” of being both “vicious and corrupt”. No quotations to support those characterizations. Apparently his own occasional vivid characterizations remain merely ‘truth-telling’. Of course.


    On the 21st at 202AM “Dennis” reports breathlessly that the AOP will soon announce the “permanent” (exaggerated formatting omitted) “removal of two more priests accused of sexual abuse”. And this is … a bad thing? It would seem that the new reforms are working. (And one only hopes that the allegations have somehow sufficiently been proven on some level.)


    Is this not an indication of a “problem” being “admitted and cleaned up”? But this is the new Abusenik fall-back gambit: once the Church actually does start implementing the reforms and removing priests, the game is now to profess shock and dismay that any such priests existed in the first place (as if one hadn’t already been claiming that they had for quite some time).


    As for the remark in the final paragraph of the comment (about Fr. Collins) “Dennis” here simply gives his own version of that comment I quoted (from memory) from an abuse ‘advocate’ that it’s nice children can get justice even if there is no evidence. But as I said: if there is no evidence, how can one justly claim a crime and then punish it? But to the Victimist/Abusenik mind this is apparently thinking too much.


    Then ‘LDB’ weighs in on the 21st at 1054AM: he refers (non-specifically) to “data” that “are in or at least referred to in the TMR article”. But – nicely – he does go into a bit more detail on that and let’s see how this works out.


    He asserts that the only way one could get to the number/percentage of half of all accusations being false is to “define most, if not all, ‘unsubstantiated’ claims as ‘false’ claims”. But the “half” is the opinion of persons who have worked on such cases and is not arrived-at by calculation, but by an educated assessment made on the personal experience of the assessor. It qualifies similarly to an ‘expert opinion’ in a court case.


    If ‘LDB’ has similar wide experience and expertise (credential information required, please) then he is welcome to proffer his own educated or expert assessment.


    Otherwise, we have a) the assessment as referenced (and linked-to) in the above article; b) the numerous factors extensively discussed in comments on this site that indicate no small probability of false-claims being lodged; and c) the examples of such allegations and stories and claims as we have been able to examine on this site.


    Against all of that one can weigh ‘LDB’s bit.


    Additionally, he then tries to go with the assertion that TMR is “defining or redefining terms” in such a way as to be “deeply misguided” (a nice professional stylistic usage, uncharacteristic but nice). I would say again that in light of points (a), (b), and (c) which I just mentioned the skepticism as to the validity of the ‘unsubstantiated’ claims is certainly appropriate, and indeed a lack of such skepticism would seem to me to be irresponsible in light of those points.


    And that would be so simply on the basis of coherent and rational assessment of probabilities. But ‘LDB’ ducks that very un-congenial aspect and instead tries to color the skepticism as merely being “what must be done to defend and preserve the church and the faith”. Thus that any skepticism is merely business-as-usual for defending the Church.


    But as I have stated several times on this site, this is merely an Abusenik Playbook gambit: i) nothing less than complete acceptance of the claims and stories and allegations and assertions is acceptable and ii) any effort to rationally and coherently examine any claims and stories and allegations and assertions – as a matter of intelligent assessment – is actually nothing but an attempt to cover-up or re-victimize or (fill in the blank). Thus intelligent assessment and rational analysis shouldn’t enter into it. I disagree.


    Thus then ‘LDB’s pose as “clearly” seeing “why interested catholic parties would want/have to do this” a) doesn’t quite cover the situation and b) opens up nicely the reality that the Abuseniks are certainly as much “interested parties” as anybody who is “interested” in trying to get a clear picture through rational and coherent assessment, with as much skepticism as the situation may require. So then “clearly” might suggest to him the need for a bit of work.


    And I don’t quite see where ‘LDB’ has done any of the “math” that he accuses “the church” of not doing, and I am not sure where the Church “has ‘thanked’ those who have done it on her behalf” or to whom such ‘thanks’ are being given.


    As for my suggestions for his further study, I did not suggest any religious education since his beliefs are his own and not my affair. I had suggested some work in the area of clarity of assessment and thinking and expression, the need of which has perhaps been somewhat nicely re-demonstrated in his comment of 1054AM.


    On the 21st at 1057AM JR asks why I “spend so much of your, rather limited, time left” [sic] “defending SNAP as being what it says”. There can be no doubt at this point that JR has either a deliberate or deep-seated reading comprehension problem: I have spent a great deal of time, even on this thread, taking SNAP apart. Could he provide some quotes as to where I am – in his mind – “defending SNAP as being what it says”?


    And is it “vicious” to suggest that I don’t have much time left? Or somehow violent? Should I apply Abusenik parameters to assess those questions? I don’t think my mind bends quite that low.  So let’s just leave it there where it was put.


    But we note here, as we have in several other comments on this thread, the Abusenik tendency to confuse their own opinions with just about the whole world’s opinions. Thus, while I hold no brief for SNAP or Anderson or any of that bunch, I still would need to see some corroboration for the assertion that that organization is one “that victims don’t like”. All victims (genuine or otherwise)? Some victims (ditto)? Just JR and a couple-three other persons?


    And once again we are presented with the ‘logic’ that since a) all the leadership of the mentioned victim groups are “catholics” and “active catholics” (the still-Father and Berry and the rest – JR ‘knows’ this, does he?) then those groups must be run by the Church because otherwise what are the “odds of that occurring ‘naturally’” [correction supplied]. I can’t tell him the odds because I have no idea of the connection between i) being an “active catholic” (an assertion which is itself unproven) and ii) the Church running those organizations. Does that problem not appear visible to him?


    Also: On the 21st at 209AM “Dennis” gave us the link to an MPR article and I have reviewed it and have some thoughts, which I will put up in a subsequent comment.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You know I'm as subject to libel laws as anyone else. Let SNAP and the rest of these clowns take me to court, if I'm lying. They certainly have my name.

      They won't. They can not because; it's only libel if it's not true.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Your god decides how much time you have left and that is all I intended by that statement. You are older probably even older than me. IMHO

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Oh are you going to chastise me again, goody,? How catholic of you to judge and chastise my behavior like I was a bad student failing your class. Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear!

      The society in which you sat judgement on me and mine is leaving the building, on it's way  out the door. Bye bye.

      Don't you think the readership gets who you and D are, from your tone? Believe me they do.

    • Delphin says:

      Why in the sane world would SNAP want to open up their little sham-scam to discovery?

      They have a good gig going, it's one that has reaped them worldly rewards in the millions, who cares if a victim-claimant gets thrown under their bus in the process of them acquiring their materialistic goal- bling?

      If the Church agreed to permit and support criminal prosecution (NOT civil) of all accused priests according to the rule of law, with no possibility of damages (i.e. monetary award), would you be as vigilant and rabid in your pursuit of "justice"?

      Would you trade your settlement bling in (swap) for the imprisonment of the 'priests' that 'raped' you?  What drives your sense of 'justice"?

    • Dennis Ecker says:


      I guess Casper is not a friendly ghost.

      I could believe them calling this house the portal to hell.

      Has anybody driven through Gary Indiana lately ?

  15. Dennis Ecker says:

    ~~Kansas City, Mo. –   Waiting may prove the hardest part as a petition seeking a canonical review of Bishop Robert Finn is en route to Rome.
    Catholics here received notification Friday from the apostolic nuncio to the U.S. that he had received and forwarded to the Vatican their formal request for a canonical penal process investigating Finn, bishop of the Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo., diocese.

    In his brief, two-sentence letter,  Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano stated, "I acknowledge receipt of your letter  addressed to me. The correspondence which you sent has been forwarded to the Holy See."

    This is an update to a post dated 2/17 with reference to the parishioners of KS asking the Pope to consider actions against Bishop Finn regarding his handling of a pedophile priest.

    Every step their letter makes from now on is a step the parishioners of KS should be very proud of. 

    • Delphin says:

      Refer your 'Update' on the  'citizen-petition' to the Vatican to the fact that the dissident Catholic group "catholicwhistleblowers" initiated this petition. So not very grassroots.

      All faithful Catholic parishioners are proud of their Church, oh self-excommunicated one, not to worry.

      Get that knock on your door, yet?

    • Delphin says:

      But, you're the only one here, aside from your little sidekick buddy, who ever threatens with libel lawsuits/claims, isn't that interesting? Is that how you've made your way through this world?

      Here's a challenge for you: someone shows up on your doorstep (knock-knock) and claims that 40 years ago you sexually abused them when they were a minor. No evidence required, no SOL, and the 'political climate' is one that supports this now socially-acceptable persecution (let's suppose the pendulum swings back to a previous era where homosexuals where assumed guilty until proven innocent – just like our priests are now), only the claimants 'word' (no evidence) is enough to put you in jail for decades (see Gordon Macrae) or bankrupt you  - what will you do, oh, what will you do?

      How's that 'settlement' looking from the other side?

    • Delphin says:

      Gary, IN is your typical leftist (godless, socialist) socially engineered city.


  16. Publion says:

    Our lessons in logic from Prof. Robertson just keep on coming.


    On the 22nd at 1130AM we are treated to this howler: a) JR is subject to libel laws, b) SNAP hasn’t sued him for libel, c) therefore JR is telling the truth.


    Thus, say, you  encounter a ranter on a street corner shouting about the misdeeds of the government, and you ask him for proof, and he tells you that the proof, obviously (to him), is that he has been shouting this same stuff for quite a while and no expensive government lawyers have sued him.


    As to JR being aware that he is “as subject to libel laws as anyone else”, that is nice to hear. If also a bit surprising.

  17. Dennis Ecker says:

    When someone wishes to come back down to earth and live in the world of reality like the rest of us its very hard to believe anything they have to say.

    He/she makes the comment "all faithful catholic parishioners are proud of their church."

    I could direct this individual to numerous blogs and sites the only thing he/she would only be able to do is face the truth and I guess call those faithful catholics anti-church hating bigots.

    Pure catholics inside and out who follow every teaching of the catholic faith, but so disgusted of how their church has handled the clergy sexual abuse claims it would make someones head spin.

    These are the catholics this individual should drop to his or her knees every night and thank the Lord above for.

    So next time this individual says ALL catholics are proud of their church. SORRY YOUR WRONG

  18. Dennis Ecker says:


    Philadelphia Archdiocese removes two more.

    Chaput today removed to more priests today with credible accusations of child abuse. Changing their titles from Father to Mr. and who will be known now until the end of time as a sexual abuser.

    One of those priests was allowed to remain working by archbishop chaput for a year in a parish after accusations had surfaced, and only removed from ministry after his retirement stating so-called  stress.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

  19. Jim Robertson says:

    Why oh Why, would people not be compensated for being raped as children by people hired by the childrens church to teach and protect them? If they broke our legs or arms we'd be compensated.

    Your logic( like your politic) is injured beyond reparation, it seems. You should sue your church for the damage it's done you. It said it exists (in part) to make you moral and you aren't so it's failed. I can give you Jeff Anderson's number.

  20. Delphin says:

    Hmmm, sound familiar?

    Anybody see any priests around? Will they now apply the Zero Tolerance formula? Will the media-ites now categorize all such secular institutions as harboring decades old (centuries old) 'conspiracies'? Will be witness the barrage of attacks on their 'belief system', or their politics?  Where is the UN?  Who's suing? Where are the cottage-industry 'help' and 'support'  groups?

    So many questions, such little media coverage of this story…



    • Dennis Ecker says:

      If you had a firearm that was laying around your house with a full clip clearly dangerous to any child or adult that comes near it, would you be more considered about your neighbor who also has a firearm laying around ?

      Then God forbid someone accidently shoots themself with your gun.

      As you are being led away in handcuffs would your defense be " I made sure my neighbors house was safe !

      You don't seem to understand Jim and I know the horrors children are facing at other organizations or schools but we are going to take care of our own house first, or what use to be we thought our house.

      Do you voice your opinions at the sites or blogs of those other organizations since you claim to care so much, or do you only save your intellect for us here at TMR ?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Is anyone else sick unto death with Nasty Mc Nasty, D ,here?

      He de-humanizes everyone here again and again if you don't agree with him.

      Why? Just for our disagreeing with his and his church's take on somethings?

      P, too. He denegrates and dehumanizes . What's the need? What do they get out of treating their fellow humans this way? And why do they need to hide who they are as they do it?

      This isn't a normal dialog. It's like talking to someone who behind a screen in a hareem. There must be a reason they don't want to be known. They can say the dialog should be about their thoughts, what they write; but since all they both do is denegrate. Their thoughts pretty much suck.

  21. Publion says:

    JR tries again on the 23rd at 1152AM.

    If your arm or leg had been broken, we’d have clear evidence. But instead, we have assertions and stories and claims that have no such clear evidence at all. Thus: there’s clear evidence in the former scenario and no such evidence in the latter.

    Thus my logic is not “injured beyond reparation”, although that possibility clearly exists in regard to the evidentiary integrity of certain stories, claims, assertions, and so on.

    And having thus hung himself out to dry in regard to logic, JR will go for a two-fer and claim that in addition to being illogical I am immoral. His lack of chops in the logic department having been demonstrated by no less an expert than himself, he will – it is to be hoped – understand if his gambit in the morality department is given just the amount of credibility it deserves.

    How nice that JR has “Jeff Anderson’s number”. JR should be sending JA a thank-you card once a month for as long as the swag holds out.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Please, think of all my swag everytime you write the lie, that victims have no evidence.

      All that compensation just sitting in my bank. Pissing you off LOL!

  22. Jim Robertson says:

    I would like to say, financially your church got away on the cheap, over all;( when it has bothered to pay anybody).

    If we, your victims, had reported at the time, we were raped. You would have had to pay 5 times more than what has been paid.

    Our not reporting cost us money. That's how much we were shamed by our rapes. We blamed ourselves and our inherent badness that this thing happened, you know catholic guilt. If things are going bad it must be your own fault, particularly if terrible things are happening to you.  That's what we were left with from our "playing pattycake" with your adult clerics against our will: self destruction and shame. Shall I thank you for that? Was rape supposed to teach me something? How come me and the other victims are the only ones to learn these lessons?. Anyone of the readership here could have been "chosen" in our place. You weren't "picked"? Count yourself lucky.

    And when we do stand up and hand the shame back where it rightfully belongs. We get you lot.Calling us bigots; fraudsters; liars; and criminals.

    The usual christian love bombing till they get you in the door of the church is never seen. Oh no! Dehumanize; detract; deflect and obscure. And since everybody here has played that tone from your side I can only think : "That's not a very natural response." Most grownups start out respectfully. Not the conversations here. Why?

    • Delphin says:

      I dont think the two real victims that post here agree with your assessment of those of us that oppose the two resident bigots (and a few other drive-by types) hate-driven persecution of the Catholic Church. Most of you, at one time or another, have admitted your antiCatholic bigotry. All of you have clearly expressed and documented that hatred here. What did you expect, a dinner party?

      Our problems aren't with victims; our problems are with bigots.

  23. Julie says:

    Delphin, I went to your link. Wow. I doubt Dennis Ecker and Jim Robertson care one way or another. They aren't actually interested in helping sexually abused children. Helping lawyers, yes. Children, no.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Julie, the fact that you relate to Delphin's nonsense and hatred, proves you aren't on the side of goodness, yourself. Congratulations! What a step up religion's been for you. (irony).

      How do I get it through your ,obviously, rather thick head? We don't talk about other religions or schools where we wern't raped. We talk about what we know. Where we were raped: The holy roman apostolic catholic church.

      Why would I talk about other situations when you are so irresponsible; so hostile to what's been done in your name? Fix yourself first.

    • Delphin says:

      Julie- the focus of the bigots here is to continue their drum-beat against the 'holy roman apostolic catholic church', as one of them just revealed.  They (he and the little buddy) are fixated on their cowardly back-alley beat down.

      The truth is disturbing to them both- which is that it is their own camp members that committed these crimes against minors, and still do outside of the Church. This is why we are constantly directed and demanded to look away from that reality.  They care little (if at all) how many more innocents will be sacrificed on their pathethic philosophical and political altar.

      You relate to and recognize these truths, even though you have been victimized, and that makes them very, very testy, indeed. It is astounding that they think they're getting over on anybody here.

      Must have been their past experiences at getting over that emboldened them so.

  24. Jim Robertson says:

    As compared to the beauty your rapacious capitalists created in Gary Indianna?

    What, the f word, is a godless city, oh charming prophet of the lord?

    Why don't you name all the godless cities for us, please?

    You could write a tour book, so good; god loving people like yourselves could save themselves from sin by never crossing into those horrible places. "godless cities"! LOL! What an idiot!

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I assume New York; L.A. and of course San Francisco must be on your list of "The best godless cities to not live in"  I would include the vatican in on that if I were you. You might want to list it towards the top.

      What about duck plop nowhere, where you live? Has your fascist brand of catholicism saved it from godlessness? Hmmmm?

  25. Dennis Ecker says:


    Jim and I do nothing for children ? Even if it is cheering them on it is still something. Far, Far, Far more then any likes of you.

    I have cheered alot in the past week,

    I have to say it CHA CHING

  26. Publion says:

    I can’t discern the sense or relevance of the analogy “Dennis” deploys here on the 23rd at 856PM: If ‘A’ has a firearm lying around the house would ‘A’ then be more “considered” about ‘A’s neighbor who also has a firearm lying around? And if somebody then shot him/herself with ‘A’s gun, and ‘A’ is being arrested, would ‘A’s defense be that ‘A’ “made sure my neighbor’s house was safe” … ???


    But then we get to far more familiar territory: we “don’t seem to understand” that “Dennis” and “Jim” apparently do indeed “know the horrors children are facing at other organizations or schools” but they are “going to take care of our own house first”.


    But of course, it isn’t actually their house any longer (“Dennis” has gone so far as to declare himself self-excommunicated, we recall). And so in order to cover that bit of a problem, “Dennis” quickly tosses in “or what use to be we thought our house” [sic]. Thus, we are apparently expected to believe, these two are going to stick with the Catholic Abuse Stampede because (or even though it isn’t any longer) the Church is still somehow ‘their house’.


    It’s plausible, no doubt about that. However it is equally plausible that these two are sticking with the Stampede for their own purposes: JR because it seems to be some sort of avocation (despite the numerous dubious elements which he has done nothing to clarify except by asserting and re-asserting the same things over and over again) and “Dennis” – one might imagine – because he has declared himself a victim of Catholic clerical abuse and has to help keep the pot-boiling on the off-chance that his own State will go the SOL-weakening route and open up a fresh payday for him. From what we have seen of their material, I don’t see where this scenario is any less plausible than the proffered ‘victim’ scenario.


    All this may seem rather hypothetical and theoretical, but this is precisely what happens when a Stampede is sustained on the daffy but lethal presumption that lack of evidence should not prevent a legal system from declaring the traceable existence of a specific crime and thus ordering (some form of) ‘justice’ for the (un-demonstrated) victims. The whole thing degenerates rapidly and ineluctably into a hall of mirrors where people wind up trying to figure out a dizzying collage of images, because that dizzying collage of images (and stories and claims and assertions) is all that anybody has to work with.


    On the 23rd at 946PM JR resorts – so characteristically – to the epithetical. Apparently pointing out the problems with the assertions is nothing but ‘denigrating’ and ‘dehumanization’.


    Oh, and the ‘hiding’ bit again.


    Again one can see the canniness of the Anderson Strategies: no tortie would want to go to trial burdened with so much fear as to which was going to come apart on the stand first – the story or the witness/allegant.


    We are then lectured that “this isn’t a normal dialog”. An observation with which I can completely agree. Stories, claims and assertions are put forward, questions are posed in regard to same, and instead of a coherent and rational response to those questions we are bethumped with a steady stream of the usual Playbook distractions and histrionics and – at best – the mere repetition of the originally questioned (and questionable) points.


    And the whole confection topped off with the final frothy epithet. They do like to deliver themselves of pronunciamentos, these Abuseniks. Explaining their specific objections in some detail, not so much at all. So I agree: “this isn’t normal dialog”.


    This soap-opera could go on and on: the cafeteria crowd don’t turn in the homework essay, but instead toss on the desk a pile of ketchup-splattered doodles and naughty-words, and then claim that they get no respect for their efforts and that they are being viciously and corruptly bethumped by all sorts of immoral types who have no right to speak up. “This isn’t normal dialog” either.


    And on the 24th at 1222AM, more of the same gambit whereby JR would like to comment on the game, but only if everybody agrees to start the ‘victim’ player on first, without having to earn the base by scoring a hit during an at-bat. And anybody who insists on the ball being hit by the batter before the batter goes to his base is simply vicious, corrupt, immoral and (fill in the blank).


    The following longer paragraph is simply a repetition (yet again) of the usual talking-points. All of which blocks are neatly put together in a little pile in order to enable the commenter to don the Wig of Victimization (un-demonstrated in any convincing way) and again portray himself as the victim in all of this.


    And – doing some “math” here: if we figure a number for all of the opportunities over, say, the past 64 years since 1950, in which a priest in this country might have had the opportunity to abuse a child, and then divide that (astronomical) number by the 12,000 allegations formally lodged (and the numbers have fallen precipitously, especially as to ‘current’ allegations) then we get a number rather well  to the right of the decimal point, which indicates a rather low frequency of abuse indeed. (And this calculation presumes the veracity and accuracy of all 12,000 allegations – which presumption I have made merely for the purposes of this exercise.)


    And yes, a solution to that problem is to claim that there are – unbeknownst to anybody – a huge number of still-undeclared ‘victims’ who are still out there somewhere. But then one would have to somehow demonstrate that the existence of such myriads was something more than a convenient and self-serving phantasm.


    And – again – it is apparently considered ‘shaming’ to ask questions, and to repeat the questions when the same allegations and assertions and stories are simply repeated without any answers to the questions. Neat.


    And yet the sustained questioning of material for which no answers are forthcoming is indeed “a natural response”. And it is the sustained  avoidance of any answering that is both not-“natural” and also indicates why some threads-of-exchange here are not really “dialog”.


    And the gambits of ‘deflecting’ and ‘obscuring’ are precisely part of that avoidance of the issues and questions.


    So JR has neatly set up a situation for himself (and the rest of the Abuseniks, perhaps) whereby he “can only think” that he is being bethumped unjustly. How convenient for him (and them). But he can “only think” that because he has arranged all of his block-y bits just-so; a more accurate assessment of his construction would no doubt indicate that there are other ways to “think” about the situation.


    And in regard to the trademark concluding “Why?”, I would also point out that “start out respectfully” would take us back to the earliest days when TMR opened itself up for comments, and that was a long time ago, and so going back to the start-out point is a ship that sailed a long time ago. Nor has anything substantially occurred in the subsequent months and years to earn any such ‘respect’. And that’s “Why”.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I paid for the "house" (your church) my antecedents paid for the "house'. I recieved all the sacraments of the "house" (but 2). I was raped in the "house" by the "house" masters. Believe me, I own the house. I may not agree with the "house", i may even bet against the "house's"  sillier rules but I and everyother victim still own the "house". Our destroyed lives paid for it.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Now you mock what I look like (to you)? What a class act! Why can't we see your profile? (You're no Barrymore I'll bet).  Why do you hide snipping from the shadows? Come ou of the closet honey! Or turn over the rock you live under and let us see the worm you actually are are. Big Bird eats worms like you.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      So, if, as you say, there are so few victims. Why won't you compensate them?

      The only answer is because you don't want to spend what you really worship: money. You are sooooo cheap! Deadbeat cheapskates!. Thieves in silk!

  27. Dennis Ecker says:


    When it rains over the Archdiocese of Philadelphia it pours. Accept this time around its monsoon season,

    As the Archdiocese only yesterday released two MORE names to the public of so-called priests who received a pink slip because of credible accusations of sexual abuse, today another one of the catholics finest has begun his travel through the Philadelphia justice system that only some may think has been unkind.

    Fr. Mc Cormick is facing numerous charges against a (10) ten year old child. A 10 year old child ? I will stop there before my Irish German anger shows through.

    Today was nothing more then both sides dotting theiir I's and crossing their T's with the judge ordering a gag order to both sides.

    Jury selection is scheduled to begin tomorrow if we do not see any delays as in past trials.

  28. Jim Robertson says:

    How horrible! Victims want money. The church asks for money from morning till night and the sun never goes down on the church asking for money all the time. Day and night; month in; month out; year in year out. Give!

    But when we tell you the little you've paid is nothing to what you need pay. There are that many uncared for victims. You whine about the $3 bucks a head you have paid. Not only are you immoral but you are so frigging cheap!!!!!

    • Delphin says:

      Looks like Big Bird (saw your profile, dude) is calling the Dove "cheap"- how funny.

      How much have you given away to all those vics for which you claim to mourn?

      We gave 3B for mostly fraudulent victims, and trillions over the years to poor and marginilized over the world – what have your peeps given to anybody (aside from disease, degeneracy, despotism and death)?

      Are you always so materialistic (quite rhetorical given your persona)?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I bet you look like a puckery ovoid shaped thing found beneath animal tails.

      Well I, unlike yourself angelfood, am a material being. So before you fly away home to the lord perhaps you could stop being moron mean towards your opposition. Maybe you could make a stab at kindness. Sir Vitriol …. No you just can not do it. You can't your on fire for the lord and his banker here on earth. Don't let victims get in your way. Dance on their bodies.They're only people.

      I'm watching Secrets of the Vatican, on Frontline and gosh oh golly! There's Tom Doyle and Jason Berry.  Surprise Surprise!The cast never changes. After 25 years this show's lasted longer than The Fantasticks. But the cast never changes does it? Peter Eisely's in a scene. Those are the only people they could find in America to give the victims POV ,Priests! ????

      You must think we are morons. Wrong.

  29. Dennis Ecker says:


    Here we go again.

    Last week was very informative regarding the catholic church. We have read from one coast to another the continued wrong-doings of the catholic church. We have also seen in two accounts parishioners stepping forth and more or less saying enough is enough. (parishioners of KC & Newark)

    We now have a new week and more sad news of how the catholic church operates.

    Beginning on Sunday the Archdiocese of Philadelphia had announced the kicking to the curb of two more of its clergy members for credible accusations of child abuse. Then on Monday we see the beginning of the trial for Andrew McCormick a priest accused of sexually abusing a 10 year old , and only one day later we see the law suit filed by a high school principal filed against who you ask ? The Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

    I for sometime I have known about the claims of this case and I am not shocked by the filing.

    I will say that Pennsylvania is a "at will" state when it comes to employment and will explain that in case nobody knows it means an employee can terminate their employment for no reason and an employer can do the same unless a contract is involved.

    However, the law is very clear that no employee maybe terminated because of sexual harrassment or criminal actions of either the employer or other employees.

    I think once this case comes to light. We will see this teacher with an endless smile from ear to ear that nobody will be able to wipe off.

    • Mark says:

      will never see a courtroom. she will get 25-50k and a new job. at least acknowledge where you get your information and stop plagiarizing from the philly.com comments section…..

  30. Publion says:

    On the 24th at 720PM JR again starts the play at first rather than with an at-bat: “victims” are the ones who “want money” – when all along the problem has been that nobody knows who is a genuine victim and who is otherwise-classifiable (but also wants money).


    And if he would care to solve that vital primary problem by giving us some demonstrable evidence for the assertion that “there are that many uncared for victims” [sic] then wouldn’t that be nice? Or are we going to be told that JR doesn’t have to do our homework for us? But this, of course, would be more like the homework he had already done before he went and made the assertion in the first place.


    Thus then – theoretically speaking, of course – is it not immoral (not to mention criminal) to acquire any amount of money (no matter how small) by perjuriously lodging false official claims?

  31. Clergy sex crimes and their aftermath are definitely not fun to research and write about. Nevertheless, it is my responsibility to thoroughly research many and varied valid sources to understand or at least be aware of opinions, and to make every possible effort to find out the truth.

    It is easier to write and advocate from one’s ‘side’ of an issue with the weight of research on the ‘side’ of that perspective. It is wise though to know all that can be known. Knowing and fair treatment does not have to result in exonerating people who commit crimes and other injustices.

    With this research, with careful consideration, and with empathy, I hope to have a balanced view of people, entities, incidents, conditions, and circumstances in order that my writing will be as savvy as possible. That is what I hope for from people, particularly those who are public about issues.

    Joey Driven

    February 25, 2014

  32. Dennis Ecker says:

    ~~Defense attorney for Andrew McCormick slams the Archdiocese.

    Before Judge Bright imposed the gag order on Monday, defense attorney William J. Brennan Jr. complained about the archdiocese's weekend announcement of the suspensions of two more priests – the Rev. James J. Collins and the Rev. John P. Paul – for substantiated claims of sexually abusing minors more than 40 years ago.

    "I don't know how they came up with something so ponderous, and to pick the day before jury selection to make this announcement," Brennan told Bright.
    Read more at http://www.bigtrial.net/2014/02/msgr-lynns-lawyers-da-hysterical.html#xsXIqgrikTHS2SfM.99

  33. Publion says:

    Readers may have noticed that certain exchanges do not constitute a “normal dialog”.


    More examples from JR occur on the 25th at 11AM and 1124AM.


    At 11AM I am uncertain to whom he addresses the remark that someone is mocking what he looks like. I certainly don’t know what he looks like and physical characteristics have absolutely nothing to do with any issues I have considered or – for that matter – do I think they have anything to do with the matters this site considers.


    But again we see a mere repetition (for the umpteenth time) of a fundamentally irrelevant point: “Why can’t we see your profile?” and “Why do you hide snipping from the shadows?” [sic; JR’s military experience apparently didn’t extend to such matters as ‘sniping’, although I have already said that my comments are more properly analogous to artillery barrages, and it is actually JR’s that are the single-shot one-liners and such that would be akin to ‘sniping’ with a single rifle].


    What of any relevance to this site’s concerns would there be in seeing a (photographic?)  “profile” of me or of any other commenter? And who would be able to say – and of what possible relevance would it be – to know the physical appearance such that perhaps a commenter might look like a worm?


    But again, this obsessive repetition of the point by JR actually reveals something more strategic: in order to toss plop (rather than deal with concepts and ideas) inveterate plop-tossers (not to put too fine a point on it) need ‘plop’. They are neither equipped-for or interested-in dealing with ideas and issues and rational and coherent assessment of same. They are more interested in tossing ketchup-packets at other students than engaging their ideas, we might say.


    That also explains why JR isn’t interested-in or worked-up-about the screen-monikers of Abuseniks who post here: since they agree with him, then they are not potential targets for the plop-toss.


    But I thought the Big-Bird bit was cutesy. And the “come out of the closet, honey” bit was – once again – indicative of some of that weird undertow in some commenters’ material. Not my problem, though.


    Then at 1124AM JR – for the umpteenth time – avoids the actual gravamen of the problem and tries to get the game going from first-base rather than an at-bat at the plate: the actual issue is not that “there are so few victims” but rather that we have no way of knowing how many are genuine as opposed to ‘otherwise classifiable’. And this is the core problem that the Abuseniks avoid like the plague, recoiling from it like vampires from holy water.


    And thus the actual problem is: how or why compensate allegants when one doesn’t know if they are genuinely entitled or merely … ‘otherwise classifiable’?  At no time has any Abusenik ever attempted to help answer that question of determining genuine from otherwise; and perhaps understandably so.


    Instead we simply get the constant repetition of global assertions that there are not many false-claims at all – although utterly no supporting evidence or rationale or sources have ever been proffered for examination.


    And lastly, I have just noticed a JR comment from the 20th at 1242PM.


    We are informed that “The U.S. government killed Malcolm X”. There is no supporting evidence proffered (But why should there be? JR is such a knowledgeable truth-teller, after all). Three members of his religious group were convicted, and later one of the convicted named other members of the group as also being involved.


    Then – as if he had made clear and rational and demonstrated arguments for it all – he claims (having donned the Wig of Honest Frustration) that he has “told you again and again” that “SNAP’s overall purpose is to ameliorate damage to the catholic corporate church by controlling the linking up of victims”.


    And the three billion or so in Church payouts is an indication of … success?


    Or – more to this gist here – are we to imagine that theoretically, by erecting SNAP, the Church has prevented the linking-up of victims? Are these persons so utterly helpless that they cannot or could not have found – in the age of the Web – ways to reach-out and join? Surely they could have gone even to some site like the National Catholic Reporter – always friendly to their agenda – and gotten some help in organizing something. Even JR might have done that – but neither he nor anybody else has apparently ever done anything along those lines, for whatever reason(s).


    And while JR then repeats yet again his bit about SNAP conferences being too expensive to get to, yet – as I said in comments a while ago about the 10th anniversary world-conference in Boston in 2012 – there were almost no attendees , less than a hundred, and at the obligatory Sunday morning ‘demonstration’ in front of that city’s cathedral there were so few that the Boston Globe photographer was hard-pressed to make them seem like anything more than a mere gaggle. Is he saying that in the New England area (the States, I recall, are rather small in that region) nobody among the myriad of ‘victims’ could attend? Nobody from even the Boston metro area (except that less than a hundred in the audience and the gaggle at the cathedral)?


    And are we really to believe that so primitive and obviously manipulative a maneuver as playing loud music so that ‘victims’ can’t talk to one another … is actually a standard procedure? First, couldn’t folks step outside and do their talking? Second, wouldn’t at least some of those folks have taken as the subject of their serious concern the very obvious fact that they were being so clearly manipulated? No exchange of emails? No post-conference talks among themselves? Nothing? At all?


    If JR’s theory here is correct, then it raised even more stunning questions than it resolves.


    And wasn’t JR there to help organize folks with these thoughts of his? He worked with SNAP for years and years, if I recall his claim correctly. So what does all this say about his own (lack of) effort in this matter?


    Rather important questions, don’t you think?



    • Jim Robertson says:

      There aren't that many victims who question SNAP. There aren't that many victims at SNAP conferences. I've told you that again and again: the vast majority of attendees at SNAP conferences are supporters not victims. Also victims ,on the whole, don't question SNAP's credentials.  That's how black opps work. They are so cross authenticated by "authorities" no  one looks deeper

      In L.A., reporter after reporter from the L.A. Times were assigned to cover L.A. 's settlement and victims., here. They were transferred again and again after very little time with the subject. No over all analysis was made by the 4th estate (press) because there was not one consistant reporter.

      Who does one go to when there's no one there? Time after time i wrote; Emailed; called. I have made every attempt possible to have serious talks with the press. Zippo.

      But as usual last night on Frontline there were the usual cast of characters Doyle; Berry; and Jeff Anderson. All the victims shown still active catholics. Yet all 4 of the 4 victims posting here (Julie, is sadly a victim but not of clerical abuse, sexually) are no longer catholics. Dennis and Kay still are deists, LDB and myself, athiests but none of us, clerical activist victims, are catholic anymore. You wouldn't guess those demographics as being anywhere near accurate if you watched the show last night.  It was, all catholic all the time. And lots of priests being "helpful". (Yea right!)

        Average people want to believe religious people are good, even when there's absolutely no proof that they are. That works for the scam. All con games require BELIEF in the con artists. (Belief is also required for the penultimate con game: religion. IMHO)

      Believe me, funny how you believe in fantasy after fantasy regarding life after death but real victims never. You are, indeed, pieces of work.

      Let's say I'm nuts. I'n a paranoid who's so f'd up I've gone insane and made this all up about Doyle; Berry; Anderson and SNAP. Why? What's in it for me? I've been compensated; and much more than most. What benefits me from "inventing" this conspiracy? Why, if I'm so obviously wrong in my analysis, has no reporter ever looked deeper into SNAP's, not very deep background? Not one. "Sweetheart" unions  and false flag efforts are not unheard of in the history of powerful organizations. But no, I'm the nut case? BUNK!

      Though the opposition disagrees with me intensely here about my beliefs and my choices. I think I've come off here as relatively a reasonable person. (foot meet mouth) Seriously. You may disagree with me. But I attempt to be logical.You respond to my arguements as if they are wrong but not irrational.

      What do I get for saying the things I say? How does it benefit me to say SNAP and Doyle are frauds. (Doyle's still a priest for god's sake! Why didn't he resign? ) It's get's me nowhere, slow, to put out what i do. Why? Would you do what I do, if you didn't believe you were telling the truth? I am the only victim (I've met )with enough of an activist past to make the analysis, I've made.

      Referencing SNAP's loud music: There was usually 10 minutes between "events" at SNAP conferences. You might talk to 1 or 2 people in that interval but you usually talk to your friends first and there were never introductions, cross fertilizations, made by SNAP.( Also since the majority of people at SNAP conferences were "supporters" not victims. Your odds of meeting and connecting with other victims were very low)

      . Kay had a national blog that was widely read. was she introduced? Never. I went to jail for my protest was i ever introduced. No. Instead non victim speakers were heralded and treated like heroes and given hours to speak. Hell the San Diego Chicken mascot (not a victim) was our first "motivational speaker"  But victims speak? never. Does that sound like a real victims movement to you?



    • Jim Robertson says:

      Regarding the attendee's at SNAP's press event : Boston's10th anniversary. Who do you think tells victims there's a SNAP event? SNAP tells victims. How do you know SNAP wanted that event to be anything other than a failure? they have the e mails addresses; we don't. Who knows to whom; and when and IF any were invited to participate at X time at X place by SNAP.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I did go to the National Catholic Reporter and I was banned. BANNED for questioning the authenticity of SNAP. I'm still banned. I wrote the editor again and again. My answer from them? Banned. (The system really works to protect the system.)

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You should rightfully be paying billions more than you have. Remember, you have the statutes of limitations working for your side not ours. Between SNAP's efforts and the statutes you've gotten off cheaply. Imagine if we victims had been able to connect, not under a sweetheart false flag group like SNAP but a group working for us. Demanding reparations constantly as compared to SNAP? You wouldn't have stood a chance at getting away with paying the little out you have. (And your insurers paid half.)

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Re: Malcolm X,

      NYPD officers were removed from the hall where Malcolm was to speak. Cops who were always watching gone. Ordered out. Why? Who had the power to do that, the Hon. Elijah Muhammed? I don't think so. But you know everything about everything. Right!

  34. Delphin says:
  35. Jim Robertson says:

    D, Why should I pay for what your church has done? I didn't rape or allow others to rape. Why is everyone else supposed to pick up the tab for your corporate church's crimes? Everyone must pay except the church?

    Again I have to tell you: Had you done the right thing from the get go; you'd have no problem. You could end your scandal now by doing the right thing by all your victims. But no, you deny and attack. Deny and attack! Some christian! You make pagans look good comparitively.

  36. Publion says:

    On the 26th at 1150AM, in regard to the problem of false-claims, JR proclaims that "fakes are your problem, not ours, the real victims".

    But that really isn't accurate at all. Every false allegant subtracts from the credibility of any genuine allegant – and, as we have seen, allegants don't like being doubted.

    And every element that increases the probability of a specifc allegation being false then also raises the possibility of others being false. Thus any story in which, say, the dots don't connect or the questions raised elicit answers that are even more questionable and raise even more complications … none of this does allegants any good at all.

    And, of course, we get the inevitable sly insertion about JR and the rest of "the real victims" – yet again. We can take JR's word for it all or we can be 'socipathic' but those are about the only options, apparently.

    I see a great amount of pixels have been devoted to SNAP and I will get to those comments shortly.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Your church hierarchy created an illegal and an immoral situation. Transferring, known to them, rapists of minors to rape again.

      You get false claims? Too f'ing bad!  You haven't shown proof for even one false claim, that hasn't been busted. False claims are your problem not ours. I agree false claims are crap for us too but where are they? Where are your hoardes of false claiments? How about 10 fraudulent claims? Got anything at all? …If not; what? What are real victims supposed to do about the mess you created??

  37. Jim Robertson says:

    I need to say more about Frontline last night. What a stupid show. It was all over the place "secret files and speculation" The music was ludicrous.

    If any of you have Tivo I hope you all taped it. It's a goldmine. I am re-watching it now.

    First notice the colors, Berry, Doyle; Anderson and Eisely wear Blue and Red, all of them. Blue for the blue states and red for the red states just your average middle of the road Americans(.No planning there)

    But fr. Doyle wears a manly yet soft green corduroy jacket with a blue shirt and a red tie.( one's supposed to think of him as a green party member too, I suppose.) Yet all Doyle talks about is himself (per usual)

    (They showed the same old" Jesus would be with the victims" speech from VOTF, Doyle gave at the beginning of the scandal.) That's hero Doyle. Always talking about his lost career as a priest,  and yet he's still a priest??? It took 7 years of being in charge of these cases at the vatican embassy in D.C. for him to "moral it up" to leave the church to help victims?

    Only 7 years to do the right thing?

    Yet he never but rarely mentions victims at all. When he does he speaks using the words "We" and "our" and "us" all the inclusive words but he never makes any inclusive actions. So interesting!

    Funny but he's all you see every show. There's fr Tom telling the truth about the guilt of the hierarchy ( That gets the religious catholics off the hook. Thanks to the good fr. Tom;  we, the public know they, the good catholics know what was done was wrong which means therefor the church knows it's done wrong and is "doing something about 'it'" The good priest is fighting for victims, see?)( Oh yes! We see.)

      Fr. Tom helps victims by talking then vanishing? And end of scene, curtain. the show's over. Till the next time fr. Tom is needed to hose down the fires. Where's the reform movement in the church fr. Tom's connected to? Anybody?

    Berry wears a blue suit with a very red tie. Berry, the one reporter from the beginning in Louisianna to now. What no other expert reporters in America on the subject? With an audience big enough to have network after network doing shows on the abuse crisis in the church.There is only one reporter overall in all of America that speaks on the subject  and that is the very catholic Jason Berry? Jason Berry who authenticated SNAP and Blaine calling her a hero on the Donahue show as he sat next to fr Greelly. All a part of the black opp, the false flag effort for victims that is SNAP.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Sorry Instead of 7 years Doyle was only incharge of all the cases in the U.S. at the vatican embassy. But then he started" meeting victims" and we "were no longer just names on paper." And he's been talking ever since always stating the obvious regarding the hierarchy but never talking about victims other than using us as a reference that cements his own virtue, subtle isn't it?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Sorry I started to say: I made a mistake in the time frame of Doyle's tenure at the vatican embassy. He was there 5 years. Again apologies.

  38. Publion says:

    On the 26th at 1106 we are told now that “there aren’t many victims who question SNAP” or its “credentials”. Why might that be? Are we to believe that out of all the ‘victims’ only JR and a couple-three others have seen through the whole thing?


    And just what are the “black ops” [correction supplied] and how do they work and who or what is behind the scenes? And instead of a simple re-asserting of the same un-supported lucubrations might we get some sort of coherent rational or explanation as how that is all supposed to work?


    And out of all the ‘victims’ only a couple-three have even noticed any of this? Is that plausible?


    And if JR is to be believed, there has been no “one consistent reporter” [correction supplied] then what theory does he have to explain that? Just about the entire LA media establishment is somehow conspiring against JR? And yet it happily continued on after the Church and published bits of the document cache. Is it possible that it took a while to find a reporter who was willing to publish Stampede-friendly articles even after they had discovered the actual dynamics and realities of the Stampede?


    And why almost the entire LA media establishment chose at some point not to be associated with JR … yes, that certainly is a question.


    Then a distracting bit about a Frontline show. The relevance of “active catholics” remains utterly obscure; and to what extent the still-Father Doyle is still characterizable as an “active catholic’ – or any of the others, for that matter – is anybody’s guess.


    There is no way that JR can credibly assert that anybody else here is a genuine victim: he was not present at the moment of the alleged abuse and it appears that in some cases he has never even met the other Abuseniks face-to-face but only online. So much for the credibility of his characterization as to the genuineness of anybody else’s allegations. And we have discussed his own at length here.


    Then we are instructed by JR as to what “average people want to believe”. Readers may judge for themselves.


    Nor does JR’s effort to change the subject to the “fantasy after fantasy” in regard to “life after death” really work except to highlight the very very real possibilities of the Stampede allegations comprising “fantasy after fantasy” – although even there, they may be deliberately burnished for the purposes of making a snazzier allegation, if not actually deliberately fabricated.


    And the same dynamic of coming to believe one’s fantasies to the point of being unable to separate fantasy from reality actually bounces back to cast an unkindly light on the Abuseniks, does it not?


    Let the record show that it is JR who proposes for the purposes of discussion that he is “nuts” and “paranoid” and all the rest. “What’s in it for me?” he plaints. That is a question about him personally that I am not going to attempt to answer. But the textbook possibilities in regard to such a possibility include a self-serving projection of one’s own issues or guilt-causing actions upon others in order to avoid the pressures of one’s own guilt, as well as the psychological benefits of somehow casting oneself in a more ‘heroic’ role than one fears is true about oneself. Those are just general bits. Whether they or other even more convoluted possibilities of ‘payoff’ for embracing such theories as he might espouse or assert actually and specifically apply to him is not something I am going to get into, and is not suitable material for the purposes of this site.


    But one author – D’Antonio – has written an entire book on the subject of Anderson and his relationship to SNAP. Since I mentioned the book quite some time ago, has JR not bothered to read it? And if my theories are correct, then the mainstream media are not interested in undermining SNAP, the activities of which have served them (as well as Anderson) so well.


    Thus the (self-serving) conclusion “Bunk!” [exaggerated formatting omitted] is certainly not warranted, not by any material we have seen here so far.


    Whether JR has demonstrated in his “beliefs and choices” (of theory, I imagine) that he is “a relatively reasonable person” is for the readership to decide. I would personally disagree.


    And I – for one – certainly do question their rationality and logical grounding and have explained why at length many times in specific analysis of some of those beliefs and theories.


    JR now tries to excuse his rather unimpressive record of making-contacts in his “YEARS and YEARS” [his own exaggerated formatting from a prior comment retained here] of “working with” SNAP by saying that there was only a short interval between “events” at SNAP conferences. And those few and brief intervals were the only times he ever could make contact with anybody?


    And if almost no ‘victims’ attended SNAP gatherings, and yet they didn’t realize SNAP’s actual operational dynamics and objectives, then what does that say about ‘victims’?


    As far as ‘Kay’ having a “widely read” blog, we are still waiting for a definitive and accurate link to the Economus material in regard to the role of the Sinsinawa nuns. Why was she not introduced? Prescinding from the possibility that she was not judged to be a very reliable speaker (for whatever reasons) by the SNAP staff, my theory would explain that by the fact that her ideas would simply interfere with the actual tortie-driven agenda for which SNAP was enlisted to be the front-organization. But that does nothing to connect SNAP to the Church or demonstrate in any way that SNAP is a tool of the Church (rather than of the torties).


    Or perhaps SNAP figured (or realized) that ‘Kay’ – among others – was not a genuine victim. I don’t know. But why SNAP didn’t call upon JR and ‘Kay’ – who had allegedly worked with SNAP for all that time – certainly doesn’t move things any closer to a demonstration of the fact that SNAP is a tool of the Church (rather than of the torties).


    I have never asserted that SNAP was “a real victims’ movement” [correction supplied]. I have simply worked to point out that we have utterly nothing to indicate that SNAP is a tool of the Church (rather than of the torties).


    Then on the 16th at 1119AM we are told by JR that only SNAP informs victims of SNAP events. Yet media reporting covers these events and certainly anybody who wished to could keep up with the SNAP site if for no other reason than to know what the schedule of conferences was. Why do so very very few ‘victims’ not do so? If almost all of them don’t realize that SNAP is not actually working for them, then why is it that so few of them evince any interest? Are they not interested? Are the ones who have already gotten their checks no longer concerned? And if so, then what does that tell us?


    And in all of their combined years and years of working-with SNAP, did JR and ‘Kay’ not get access to any listings of victims? Just who closely, really, did they work-with SNAP at all?


    Then on the 26th at 1133AM JR reports that the National Catholic Reporter “BANNED” [exaggerated formatting retained] him. And why might that have been? Is the NCRep also a tool of the Church? And what “system” is it, precisely, that is referred-to here? In my theory, it is the “system” that works to protect and continue the Stampede for its own purposes, and that “system” is comprised of a congeries of interests outside-of and inside-of the Church that are hostile to the Church to the extent that they wish to undermine its credibility and public stature.


    And on the 26th at 1140AM JR merely asserts that “you” (meaning the Church) “should be paying billions more than you have”. No rationale or explanation or demonstration of why that might be (unless you wish to simply accept his assertions as to myriads of genuine victims and still-unreported victims as accurate and true, despite the curiously but profoundly non-interest that most such persons have consistently displayed across the board.


    And again, it remains well within the realm of probability that this imagined “we victims” remains simply that: a figment of somebody’s imagination (let alone trying to determine who is ‘genuine’ and who is ‘otherwise classifiable’).


    Thus the “sweetheart false flag group” that is SNAP may well remain, as in my theory, a tool of the torties and working for their agenda and objectives rather than any purpose of the Church. And once again, we are left with only JR’s dream (or daydream or pipedream) about all these hypothetical victims ‘connecting’.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      My dear boy all, all SNAP's mailing list was held by SNAP. Never shared. "Victims could be harmed if they were known", says SNAP.

      And aren't you fast off the block with your response. You raped minors stupid! That's what your system gave you. Enough raped minors to cause your church to jump through hoops it never had to jump through before. Enough raped minors to get the world's attention. You are an idiot.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I have repeatedly asked K to connect you to the information. Information I gave you years ago. Information I want you to have. But typically, nothing from K on this. I do not control other people. Her interests are survival at this point like most American workers. I have asked her twice and nothing.

      SNAP , 9 times out of 10 called us the night before any press event they would stage. 9 times out of 10. That's how little time they gave us to process their choices. Actually it was more like 10 times out of 10. And they behaved the exact same way across the country.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Do you have a pile of victims or do you not? You are the one's screaming false claims (showing none by the way) and whining about what you have paid.

      Your church has all the info; victims only have our own indivdual rapes.

      You have all the info. we don't; but you aren't producing any statistically significant number of false claims. Why not? Wouldn't that turn the world in your favor? Trot 'em out! Let's see what you've got. Otherwise you are just imagining false claims.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Why don't you "supply the corrections" you waste on me by correcting your incorrect church?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I have never cast myself as a hero. What I do around this issue just needs doing. And since I can do it. I do, do it.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I'm saying our torties could very, very easily be the church.  And or picked by the church to do what torties do. After watching Jeff Anderson last night does anybody see him as the brains behind anything????? He's the top tortie in this massive scandal? He's the best most skilled lawyer? Really? Run the tape back. See him speaking to a jury? That's top drawer legalling to you?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I worked at the L.A. Weekly a newpaper in L.A. I did do some articles but was never a reporter per se. I had been a messenger there; then in charge of security I wrote Best of L.A. an article on Lance Loud and an art article on Sequieros, the Mexican muralist.. Kay recieved her degree in journalism from Texas A and M, I think,. But she worked in the press dept. for NASA and was being groomed at one point for spokes person for NASA. That's our background. Others who figured out SNAP is the church is an antique dealer in the mid-west, a victim in Boston and another in Michigan, all with no degrees (including myself).

  39. Jim Robertson says:

    D'Antonio's book I have not read. It was promoted by Doyle and SNAP, Why would I bother? I know it didn't go past the false authentications. Or it wouldn't have been promoted by Frick and Frack and you. Why don't you send me your copy P? I'll ready it and mail it back.

    Oh! I forgot. You and D live in the shadows Beyond addresses and names..

  40. Jim Robertson says:

    See how controlling public opinion has been studied and charted https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

  41. Publion says:

    Well, let’s attend to ‘process’ first, as the therapists say. We see that JR has submitted a bunch of shortish bits – which neatly avoids his having to deal at any length with any of the substantive issues or questions. Instead, we get a bunch of rat-a-tat handfuls of tossed stuff; the short posts are so much easier for tossing handfuls of stuff.


    On the 26th at 753PM, I am addressed (the Wig of Downton Abbey Dowager) as “My dear boy” – lah de dah. And a Wig this far out is probably going to indicate that JR has run off the rails.


    Sure enough: SNAP held its mailing list closely and was “never shared”. Oh. Except that JR had told us that he and ‘Kay’ had worked with SNAP for “YEARS and YEARS” … so either they didn’t really work very closely or within the organization or else they had access to the lists and never bestirred themselves to copy them (once they realized that SNAP’s agenda was not primarily concerned with victims’ needs).


    Then we get more derailment. I was “fast off the block” with my “response” – that’s a problem? And then: “You raped minors stupid!” – which is the point where I remind JR that JR has reminded us that he too is subject to  libel laws.


    Oh, and also “You are an idiot”. My bet is that if I am an “idiot”, I am a pretty accurately-observing kind of idiot and have hit more than a few nails on the head. And the only fry-fly response to that is name-calling. The varsity they ain’t.


    Then on the 26th at 802PM JR claims to have given us information about Economus “years ago”. He did not – he simply made the assertion (which in his mind seems to equate to giving “information”) and recently, when asked for a link to the material, simply put up an email address for ‘Kay’. But – always one to find a way to the ‘victim’ Wig and stage – JR will assume that like all “American workers” she is just trying for “survival” – although I note that she has the time, in the midst of her ‘survival’ issues, to compose and submit comments here.


    And having “asked her twice and nothing”, has it yet dawned on JR that the evidence he has asserted might not actually exist?


    At this point, what JR claims about his SNAP experiences really have to be simply left alone as utterly unreliable. In light of the profound disconnect about the depth and extent of his ‘years and years’ involvement with SNAP as noted above, then I think we are just heading deeper into a house of mirrors.


    On the 26th at 810PM JR asks “Do you have a pile of victims or do you not?”. Which almost gets-it; the actual question would have to be phrased “a pile of genuine victims or not” – and will JR have any thoughts as to how to establish that authenticity? My bet is: No.


    The burden of proof is on the accuser, and that means the allegants and torties: and so far we have seen little to indicate that their veracity and accuracy is almost completely reliable and beyond question. JR’s sly effort to make the readership the accuser (for ‘accusing’ the accusers of making false claims) in this dynamic isn’t going to work.


    What is “all the info” that the Church has? And note again the effort to simply bring things back to the Wig of Victimization and to first-base (rather than any at-bat at home plate): we don’t really know who was a genuine victims of “rapes” and who wasn’t. This is the source of another queasy and weird undertow in Abusenik material: they always work toward making sure that whatever is under discussion is somebody else’s fault. MY own thought that this is a substantial dynamic operative in the Stampede – and we see again the brilliance of the Anderson Strategies in providing a chute by which the types could be funneled into the claim-stream without any of the major players actually having to risk being too closely associated with them.


    As for me “just imagining false claims” this is merely another indication of JR”s usual fry-fly I’m Not/You Are type of comeback (not to be confused with either a) a thought of b) a response or answer).


    Then on the 26th at 819PM a whine that I should stop correcting JR and try correcting “your incorrect church”. Awwwwwwww. JR is victimized yet again.



    Then on the 26th at 823PM, JR claims never to have cast himself as a hero. Well, he and Dennis have envisioned themselves in material here as being the only ones speaking for victims against such evil and immoral and stupid and – most recently – ‘idiotic’ types, so perhaps JR would like to examine himself a bit more closely. And this whole bit about being the only one or almost the only one speaking ‘for victims’ while (we are to believe) SNAP, Bishop-Accountability, the Church, the media in LA, and (we shall soon see below) the torties themselves are all in league against him … that pretty much sets up the script for JR to be the Hero, does it not? (And so he is both Hero and Victim – neat two-fer.)


    And of all the things that apparently “just needs doing” for all of the (alleged) victims, just what – again – has JR done? His “years and years” of working-with SNAP apparently yielded nothing substantial at all.


     Then, on the 26th at 830PM JR actually does – marvelously – allow as how victims’ own tort attorneys “could very, very easily be the church”. Which makes no sense as written but let’s try to save time and presume JR means to say that the torties too are in on the league against him and that the Church controls them just  it does like the above-mentioned elements.


    And JR claims that his observation of Anderson reveals little evidence of Anderson’s skill (and yet Anderson’s Strategies have reaped billions) – so who are we going to believe: JR or our own lying eyes?









    On the 27th at 1111AM we are given sketches but no information about a couple-three others around the country who – JR would have us believe – also figured out SNAP. Well, readers can take that for the evidentiary value it’s worth.


    And on the 27th at 1057 JR absolves himself from having read D’Antonio because “Doyle and SNAP promoted it”. Apparently, simply wanting to inform oneself about possible information in an area about which one claims to be profoundly active and interested … has no traction for JR. But as I have always said, plop-tossers aren’t interested in books or ideas – only plop-tossing.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I got my compensation, remember? No body is in league against me but you. SNAP and Anderson are in league against all victims. And???? You still haven't come up with my motivation for doing this work. I won't be seen to be "heroic" if I'm lying about the black opp called SNAP. So I only win that hero prize when I'm proven correct.  You don't think that's going to happen? Stranger things have happened.

      And you say I'm not right. Like you know something. You're behind a screen. Hiding and shouting out: Saul Alinsky raped the kids not fr. F&%k!

      Good luck. Senator Joe. Do you have a list of names to accompany your Red Herring?


    • Publion says:

      More from the hall of mirrors: on the 27th at 614PM JR tries the usual Playbook gambit of drawing an illogical conclusion from material, then making objection to the (conveniently misread) bit he has himself put up, and thus refuting his own incorrect assertions as to what was originally said.  As I have said, the whole Abusenik thing becomes a hall of mirrors very quickly. 

      We precisely do not know – nor have the Abuseniks nor the document-releases really demonstrated – just what did or did not go on. That’s been the problem with the Stampede all along. But that is also precisely the scam at the heart of the Stampede that has enabled it and sustained it: nobody actually knows, too many presume to know, and the Stampede – according to the tenets noted by LeBon and prescribed by Hitler and Alinsky – rolled on. 

      Nor will JR be able to demonstrate with any accurate quotation where I had blamed Alinsky for anything. I had pointed out the congruence of his ideas and method with the Stampede. 

      Then on the 27th at 626PM JR reminds us that it was about the money since his first thought is that he “got [his] compensation”. I would say he got his check; nothing else has been demonstrated to characterize it as anything else at this point. 

      Then more illogic, flowing from the fact that fry-flies only try to make come-backs to the most immediate material, and don’t give thought to whether what they are going to say is coherently connected to anything else they might have said at some earlier point. 

      Thus, here, JR now says that “no body is in league against me but you … SNAP and Anderson are in league against all victims”. So then … a) I am not “against victims” but only against JR; but JR is a victim (of one sort or the other). 

      And, but of course, I am “in league [with myself?] against him” because I want the play to begin with a demonstrated hit from an at-bat at home plate rather than starting things at first-base, as the Anderson Strategies, the Stampede, the Abuseniks, and JR require. 

      I have indeed “come up with [his] motivation for doing this work”, but I couched it in general terms so as not to be too inflammatory and intrusive by personalizing it. He can read my comment on this thread from the 26th at 633PM in the paragraph beginning “Let the record show”.  I will try again, in general terms: there are psychological pay-offs that might easily and well account for this “motivation”. And: Yes, that then leads to the hardly improbable possibility that what we have been seeing is a rather extended acting-out (in pixels) of a personal soap-opera, but (if my theory is correct) it is what it is. Enough said on that.

      JR is accurate when he says that he “won’t be seen as ‘heroic’ if [he is] lying about the black opp called SNAP”[sic; JR’s military experience apparently didn’t extend to his knowing military terminology: the term is ‘black op’ or ‘black ops’]. But that doesn’t really cover the bases here: he won’t be seen as ‘heroic’ if he is demonstrated to have been ‘otherwise classifiable’ in terms of his original claim and story, but he – in best tortie and Abusenik fashion – has worked very hard to make sure that that eventuality doesn’t have a chance to arise. 

      And in regard to his theories about SNAP itself (insofar as it is a tool of the Church, along with a whole bunch of other co-conspiratorial elements such as the Anderson, the torties, and the media), it remains now a hardly unlikely probability that his credibility – and thus his ‘heroism’ – has already been undermined by the palpable non-credibility of either his theory or his attempts (such as they have been) to defend or explain his theory. 

      And he is accurate when he makes the characterization of the possibility of his someday being “proven correct”: “stranger things have happened”. But would you buy a used-car from a salesman who assures you – in response to your question as to whether the car is reliable – by saying “stranger things have happened” … ? Would you invest in a stock-fund when the broker – in response to the question as to whether you are going to be seeing sustained returns in the 10-percent-annually range – merely says “stranger things have happened” … ? 

      And again JR will have to produce a quote (an accurate quote) from my material as to where I say he is “not right”. I have pointed out the improbabilities and the problems with the claims and assertions that he has made. That is the most one can do in this hall of mirrors of a Stampede. I don’t “know” and – especially as arranged by the Anderson Strategies – nobody really knows or at this point can know. That’s the entire problem here: it has become a matter of probabilities because nobody can “know” how to distinguish truth from fiction in the assorted stories, claims, allegations and assertions. So the best he could say here is: I consider his assorted stories, claims, allegations and assertions to be highly improbable. 

      And then at this point, in “a normal dialog”, his job would be to work to reduce the improbability by i) better explaining his theories or ii) changing his theories. There is a third option here of course: avoid the improbability through that panoply of Abusenik Playbook dodges and distractions. 

      And that’s precisely what JR then does here in his next paragraph: he goes for that third option by raising the red-herring distractions about me “hiding” myself “behind a screen” and “shouting out” (nice projection: it is not my comments that are peppered with scream-y capitals). 

      And what he claims I am “shouting out” is another clear deployment of the distraction gambits of the Playbook: he creates a mis-reading of my Alinsky material and thus claims that I said that “Saul Alinsky raped the kids” and not some priest. 

      I have never equated Saul Alinsky with rape and as far as “rape” goes, that is one of the smallest percentages of claims made in the formal allegations tallied up by the Jay Reports. 

      And the whole distraction is then further reinforced by the deployment of scatology – which among the cafeteria types is apparently a valid element in “dialog” toward assessing and making points. 

      Readers can see here some clear and almost-textbook examples of the Playbook in action. 

  42. Publion says:

    On the 27th at noon we get from JR a link as to how “controlling public opinion has been studied and charted”.


    I could also recommend Gustave LeBon’s classic The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind and also the relevant portions of Hitler’s Mein Kampf (in which we discover that even before he met Goebbels Hitler was very canny and informed on the subject of how to manipulate public opinion for his own purposes). I have recommended both of these books in prior comments.


    I could also again recommend Saul Alinsky’s 1971 Rules for Radicals  as even more topical and relevant to the Stampede; it is a step by step manual on now to create a PR crisis for your targeted individual or organization.


    About the only major element of Alinsky that wasn’t incorporated into the Stampede was his thinking on how the “organizer” can “maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy’”. Victimism basically side-stepped the necessity for this step by going back to Mein Kampf’s ideas on how to demonize one’s target (through selective focus on only the bits convenient to your agenda and insistently exaggerating your target’s evil and monstrousness); by using the horror of the crime (alleged) against the victim, Victimists (and later, Abuseniks)  could manipulate public opinion to simply presume that the alleged crime was committed in the first place, and thus get the game started from the far more convenient first-base.


    Whereas Alinsky presumed an unsympathetic media establishment, the Victimist movement here – similar to Hitler in Germany in the 1930s – realized that the media establishment was largely going to be a very receptive and willing collaborator in the spread of such ‘stories’, satisfying the post-1960’s media need for emotionally-gripping stories to keep up circulation and the journalistic calling’s need in that era to feel that it was not simply ‘reporting’ history but ‘making’ history. And that ‘making history’ rather nicely captures the lengths to which the media were willing and eager to go. As we have seen.


    A last point here: in my immediately previous comment there is a “MY” in there that is merely a typo: the ‘M’ is capitalized because it begins a sentence; the capital ‘Y’ is a typo.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      So it was Saul Alinsky that raped catholic minors; and it was Saul Alinsky who passed said rapists around to rape again?  I didn't know that.

  43. Jim Robertson says:

    Where are all the false claims? That's what you complain of but yet you produce next to none.

  44. TheMediaReport.com says:

    Thank you, everyone!

    This thread is now closed.


  1. [...] Fr. Lucie-Smith, CH Critiquing Moderation: Does Centrism Befit Our Times? – Robert Struble Five Things Media Can Do To Improve Reporting of Sex Abuse - Md Rpt “Cold Butter Doesn’t Spread” - Rocco Palmo, Whispers in the Loggia The [...]