They Finally Take Notice: Newsweek Runs Cover Story About Bogus Church Abuse Scandal in Philadelphia

Ralph Cipriano : Newsweek

Continuing the fight for truth and justice: Journalist Ralph Cipriano

If there were still any doubt about the criminal fraud committed against the Catholic Church in Philadelphia by D.A. Seth Williams and his publicity-seeking prosecutors, look no further than the eye-popping cover story this week in Newsweek by veteran journalist Ralph Cipriano.

Over the last few years on the blog, Cipriano closely followed the trials against Catholic clergy which received widespread local and national attention.

The accuser at the center of it all, Dan Gallagher, claimed that during the 1998-1999 school year, when he was a 10-year-old altar boy in Philadelphia, he was serially raped and abused – sometimes for hours on end – by the late Fr. Charles Engelhardt, former Catholic school teacher Bernard Shero, and ex-priest Edward Avery, all of whom barely even knew each other.

The mainstream media wakes up

Dan Gallagher : Philadelphia : Florida

The $5 million man:
Accuser Danny Gallagher

Numerous times over the past several years Cipriano has written about a mountain of indisputable evidence indicating that Gallagher most certainly falsely accused the trio of Engelhardt, Shero, and Avery.

However, in his Newsweek piece, Cipriano expands the story even further. Cipriano now reveals details of a 40-page psychologist report concluding that because the "immature," "manipulative," and "hedonistic" Gallagher has admitted providing false information about his past repeatedly, there is no way to conclude "to a reasonable degree" that Gallagher has ever been abused by a priest, or by anyone in his life.

Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any clear-thinking person, not to mention 12 individuals sitting on a jury, believing Gallagher's crazy and unbelievable tales. The evidence for the convicted men’s innocence is beyond overwhelming:

  • Even members of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office itself did not believe Gallagher's wild claims and questioned whether they should even put Engelhardt and Shero on trial.
  • Triple-accuser Gallagher has been arrested at least six times – once for possession of 56 bags of heroin – and has been in-and-out of some 23 drug re-habs.
    [Check out a court summary of Gallagher's extensive arrest record]
  • Gallagher even explicitly told drug counselors that he had "no history of physical or sexual abuse."
  • Gallagher has admitted that he lied when he said he worked as a paramedic and a "professional surfer" (yes, a professional surfer from Philadelphia);
  • On three separate occasions, Gallagher told drug counselors that his older brother had been arrested for molestation. In truth, Gallagher's older brother, James Gallagher, is a recently licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and has never been arrested at all.
  • An alternate juror even came forward after the trial with the dramatic charge that the guilty verdicts against Engelhardt and Shero were "insane," "incredible," and "a tragic miscarriage of justice."
  • Fr. Engelhardt easily passed a polygraph test denying that he abused Danny or anyone, and the test administrator was a guy often hired by the Philly D.A.'s Office itself.
  • Ex-priest Avery not only passed a polygraph test indicating that he had never abused Gallagher, but he also told authorities he never even met him before. In addition, records later revealed that Gallagher never even served as an altar boy at Mass with Avery, as Gallagher had claimed.
  • Fr. Engelhardt previously waved his fifth amendment rights and voluntarily appeared before the Philadelphia grand jury, at which he asserted his innocence and testified, "I have no knowledge of who the person is. If he's sitting in this room today, I can't pick him out … I found it to be a very humbling thing to be called on the phone … when you know, there was no truth or that was something unrealistic that was happening to you."
  • And as we have relayed before, Gallagher has told separate tales of abuse by the trio of men that not only defy any reasonable belief but have varied wildly over time.

Paging Rolling Stone magazine

Sabrina Rubin Erdely

Discredited – again
Sabrina Rubin Erdely

Cipriano reminds readers that Gallagher's bogus rape story was the subject of a splashy 2011 story in Rolling Stone magazine by Sabrina Rubin Erdely.

The crusading Erdely wrote, with no shortage of lurid detail, of how Gallagher, described only as a "sweet and gentle kid," was repeatedly raped and sodomized by the three men and forced to perform stripteases after Mass.

Does Erdely's name sound familiar? Well, she is the same Erdely who wrote an incredible, 9000-word piece in 2014 for Rolling Stone about "Jackie," a University of Virginia co-ed who claimed she was gang raped by seven men at a fraternity party. The story received huge national attention.

However, after the Washington Post did a little digging, the Jackie story was exposed as a hoax. Rolling Stone retracted the story, and defamation lawsuits are currently pending.

The question now is: Will Rolling Stone retract its bogus Gallagher story?

Many kudos to Newsweek for publishing Cipriano's piece and helping get the truth out about this egregious miscarriage of justice.


  1. Publion says:

    But wait – there’s more! ‘Dan’ – like Cher and Sarah Bernhardt – is already baaaaaack! (the 3rd at 429AM).

    Saints be praised.

    And ‘Dan’ now starts referring to himself in the third-person.

    But then claims that “’Dan’ has had enough” … go figure.

  2. Publion says:

    On the 3rd at 529AM ‘Dan’ reports he has responded to my comment (of the 1st at 500AM) pointing out the abyssal discrepancy between ‘Dan’s reading of MT 18:6 and the Marcan parable of the Good Shepherd.

    And what (on the 3rd at 523AM) has ‘Dan’ finally got to say to resolve this substantive discrepancy?

    He says that if he had to address every point I make (and if he had to read everything in the Bible) then … what? Then his comments would “become as drawn out and nauseous as you”. I would add: They might also – perhaps – become more usefully accurate, as opposed to being vivid and pithy but largely incoherent and inaccurate.

    Oh … and also that he would be happy to discuss these matters with somebody who had “Biblical acumen” but – by amazing coincidence – that “certainly wouldn’t be” me. Ovvvvvv courssssssse.

  3. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 529AM:

    But – in another marvelous self-giveaway – he reports that this sort of thing is “the story of [his] life”. Yes, I imagine that it would be. As was, for example, the abyssal discrepancy between ‘Dan’s reading of what happened at the school-yard fence and what might far more rationally be presumed to have transpired there.

    Then a scream-cap quotation from Scripture.

    And the alert reader will quickly note that ‘Dan’ hasn’t actually addressed the abyssal discrepancy between his reading of MT 18:6 and the Marcan material at all.

  4. Publion says:

    But wait – there’s more!

    ‘Dan’ will then address the discrepancy I pointed out between his own perturbations and Scripture itself.

    How does he resolve it? By claiming that since he goes to great trouble and effort to use “Bible quotes” then clearly … what? Why – ‘Dan’ would have us swallow – then that proves that since he uses a lot of Bible quotes then there is no difference between his stuff and Scripture itself.

    He will be happy to let readers decide (but they’d better not go too far with this, especially if they decide they don’t agree with him or him-and-God here). I am also happy to let readers decide.

    And the Servant is then moved to close with more scatological epithet. God must be in a mad and juvenile sort of mood again.

    • Dan says:

      The hilariass lying mocking jackass !!!!!!!!! He's finally learned to capitalize God's name. Time to promote him to kindergarten !!!! The psyche will be very pleased with your progress !!!!!!!!!!

  5. Jim Robertson says:

    Dan, if you are genuine in what you say; reading P will not be good for you.  Ignore him if you can and want to. He's sent here do to what he does. He's an evil phony.

    Dan, your god doesn't need you to defend him. He's in charge. He's got it all under control. That's according to your own beliefs.

    You are right P doesn't believe in god. He's here to blow smoke. That's what he's doing by attacking you and everyone else. Just like every other right winged dummy he blames everyone else but never himself.I don't think he believes a word he says. He's just doing a job for his bosses. He's a hired gun. I wish you and everyone peace.

    • Dan says:

      Thanks Jim for the constructive advice. Already felt the same and told my friend if she sees me go near our computer, please just shoot me and put me out of my misery. Want you to know that I hear you as an honest, decent person and we may not believe the same, but I respect and trust you. Maybe you should ignore him also, he'll probably do just fine talking to himself and telling himself, "How super-duper intellegent I think I am !!!"      Be well, Jim

    • Publion says:

      The present state of the thread poses an irritating problem for JR: he can’t get the focus back where he wants it, he isn’t really equipped to discuss Darwinism or Scripture, and ‘Dan’ was starting to make some of JR’s signature moves and sounds (taking a huffy departure but only sort of, tossing out juvenile epithets).

      Whatever to do?

      If you can’t beat’em, join’em, perhaps.

      Thus (the 3rd, 208PM) JR will now settle down to something in the pastoral-ministry line, counseling ‘Dan’.

      This, of course, poses a few problems of its own, since JR’s 3×5 file doesn’t contain many Scriptural bits and he doesn’t subscribe to ‘Dan’s (or perhaps any) god or God (as is his right, of course).

      But he does have his trusty (if not trust-worthy) pot of tea-leaves, and – faute de mieux – he ladles out the present contents of the pot: I am “sent here”; I am “an evil phony”; I am “here to blow smoke”;  I am “attacking” not only ‘Dan’ but “everyone else” (JR here – as so often – confuses or conflates himself with everyone else … perhaps in the world); I ‘blame’ “everyone else but never [my]-self”; I may well not ‘believe’ “a word” of what I say; I am “just doing a job for [my] bosses”;  I am “a hired gun”.

      In sum, JR’s is using ‘Dan’ as a stepping-stone for tossing up yet again all his old distracting bits. And in best Playbook fashion: avoid the issues and try to attack the questioner. Old ‘Dan’ may be wobbly and on the ropes, but he can still be useful for JR’s purposes.

      But JR is apparently also intrigued by the Wig of Prayerful and Benevolent Servant-hood and he can’t resist trying it on: he doth proffer a benediction of peace to ‘Dan’ and “everyone” (the genuine Papal phrasing might be urbi et orbi). I’ve often said here that Abuseniks – for all their honking against hierarchs, religion, the Church and God – really can’t resist declaiming and denouncing in the papal or apostolic style. Mimicry is what they do.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I guess, by using English, I'm mimicing P . I did not know the catholics had a patent on the word, Peace. P your arrogance is breathtaking in both it's range and limitations.

      P,You are so gay.(Cher AND Sarah Burnhart!) Does your mother know? It must be quite the struggle for you: the conflict between being gay and being catholic. I don't think I've ever met someone that had sold his soul so obviously before. That can't feel good. I pity you.

  6. Publion says:

    On the 3rd at 607AM ‘Dan’ goes on – in a screamy way – about the “half-baked fruitcakes” bit of his. And then riffs on it, Scripturally of course. Ovvvvvv coursssssssse.

  7. Dan says:


  8. Dan says:

    peewee at 2/4 @ 3:04,  Whatever !!    Jim you have him pegged. Well done. You noticed peewee that I had one word for you, because I'm done with your lying, mocking ignorance. Please, Christians read your Bible. Your cult and peewee fit every description of the wicked.

    P.S. Whatever !! (U.D. def) Indifference to what a person is saying! Who cares! Get a Life!

  9. Publion says:

    Well, ‘Dan’s most recent crop takes us all back to the myah-myah of grade-school, as even he seems to intuit on some level. Although – making common cause with JR (not a bad match since when you come right down to it they are pretty much peas from the same pod) – he now claims that he has engaged the services of a lady-friend to “shoot” him if “she sees me go near our computer” … one can only imagine this is typical ‘Dan’ exaggeration and hyperbole, such as in the schoolyard story.

    But what if he gets a god-gram instructing him to declaim further? What happens then? Stay tuned.

    And don’t toss away those unused discount tickets for popcorn and soda out in the lobby just yet.

  10. Publion says:

    I think at this point it is worthwhile to recall again why I take the time with assorted Abusenik bits; it might well occur to some readers to think ‘OK, they’re crazy or sleazy, so just let them be because who cares?’.

  11. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of the 4th at 202PM:

    I would respond:

    First, because the average reader isn’t going to run into types like this in the normal course of his/her day and most people simply presume a more or less common level of intelligence and maturity and honesty in almost everybody else. And this decent presumption thus makes most people vulnerable to the (sociopathic, if you wish) manipulations of those who aren’t at that common level but are inclined to mimic that common level in order to pursue their own schemes and agendas.

    The Web amplifies and expands this danger. Because on the Web you don’t have the added protection of your own senses when in the physical presence of such types; they often do set some interior warning-whiskers twitching when you are in their actual physical presence (which, for example, may very well have alerted and alarmed the staffers out there by the schoolyard fence).

    So when one is working solely in the Web or internet modality, then one has to pay careful attention to what they write. And that’s part of the reason why I do pay such careful (and – yes – lengthy and specific) attention to the various Abusenik bits here.

    • Dan says:

      "What we see in others is really a reflection of ourselves."  You think your the intellegent one, you're the mature and the honest one? Man, do you need a reality check! You're such a creepy liar, you make the hair stand up on the back of my neck. Your'e so used to lying that I think it's just become your nature. Please put an end to your cartoon so I can leave the theater and go home. Later, creepy mocker of just about everything that is truth.

    • Dan says:

      I'll let you correct the "your"s so you can think you're intellegent when you're really sick [sic].

  12. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of the 4th at 202PM:

    Second, because most of these types do not possess independent capabilities of thought and knowledge, and thus in their ever-busy quest to come up with more ‘points’ they wind up providing an invaluable service: like magpies, they trawl various precincts of the Web where most people don’t often go, and bring here a useful supply of the latest gambits (claims, assertions, stories, presumptions – all often masquerading as undeniable and dispositive facts or thoughts)  that are popular in those precincts.

    Here on this site we have been able to examine both Abusenik and more recently theological or religious material that most of us would not ever have the opportunity of encountering and assessing in the usual course of our activities.

  13. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of the 4th at 202PM:

    Third, because the Stampede has from the get-go made itself attractive to such types and their modus operandi. They are all over the Stampede like ants at a picnic and there is much to be learned.

    And while it would be an arduous job separating out those priests who genuinely do not or did not belong in ministry, it is vastly more difficult to conduct such an organizational review and winnowing under the deforming pressures of a Stampede environment which itself is deeply dependent on the type of carryings-on we have seen on this site and the BigTrial site.

    And that is then even more true when one is attempting to sort out – through legitimate legal process – just  who is rightly liable to the sovereign coercive power of the civil or criminal law (as well as canon law).

  14. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of the 4th at 202PM:

    So that’s why I take the time and effort to consider the various bits that come our way in comments on this site, in regard to both the material and the types who proffer it.

    • Dan says:

      This reply is for your last 6 posts. Correction. All your posts on this site and across the web.

      BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!  or is it BAH BAH BAH HUMBUG !!! Have at him, everybody. He's all yours. I feel one of those God-grams arriving any minute now by pterodactyl, "Darwin".

  15. Jim Robertson says:

    Us "Types" are lke ants ruining a picnic huh? Well perhaps when you are finished feasting on the bodies of your child victims ;You'll fix the mess you've made. To leave nothing for us ant types to clean up for you. You church types have been feasting on the young on every level possible. We don't have "independent capabilities of thought and knowledge" and we are also like magpies. Well all that is crap. We ,so unlike your type, don't eat our young. "Independent capabilities of thought and knowledge" What would those be? The Baltimore catechism?  Very "independent" that. lmfao again. You are the Donald Trump and Ted Cruz of these debates all in one P. All bluster and insult with no gravitas and even less authority to judge. Thank goodness you are near death. Your whole world is going bye- bye. So night- night evil one. You'll  never feel better in the morning. Something to do with your type, no doubt.

    Also what ever happened to the Navy guy who used to post here as Publion?

    He wouldn't be making references to Cher and Sarah Bernhardt now would he?

    • Publion says:

      One doesn’t need to give the Abuseniks too much rope before they reveal themselves and their game.

      I’ll leave JR’s of the 4th at 215PM for readers to consider and I will focus here on his of the 5th at 1108AM.

      In his first paragraph JR tries to deploy the (no doubt consoling and convenient) spin by which Abuseniks justify themselves and their game: since the Church made the “mess”, the Abuseniks (and the Stampede), truthy and heroic, have had to come in and ‘clean it up’.

       (The particularly adept rhetorical deployment of the “feasting” imagery, building on the “ants at a picnic” image, is a nice one, once again raising the question as to whether JR has many skills which he chooses to reveal only once in a great while or – instead – there is something of an off-site group-effort to some of his submissions.)

      But, of course, to just what extent there was a “mess” in the first place … that is the slyly hidden presumption fueling his effort and the phenomenon of the Stampede in the first place.

      With at least one new trial now granted in Philadelphia (as the BigTrial site now reports), we are once more confronted with the reality that so much of the Stampede-driven gambit fails to produce a reliable and legitimate outcome.

  16. Jim Robertson says:

    Was looking at P's false name. Publion.

    Pub Lion.

    He's either a bar habitue who thinks he's the Lion King. (We see him here as the King of Lyin') or he's see himself as the public lion defending the church like Aztlan in CS. Lewis's The Lion; the Witch (Bitch?) and the Wardrobe. Well he's lyin'. He's in the closet, And like Lewis; he's an apologist for nonsense.

    I'm wondering if the word has a connection to "publishing"?  A French dictionary says Publier is a verb meaning to publish. ? Or in P's case  Public lying?

  17. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1108AM:

    So whether the Abuseniks and the Stampede have ‘cleaned up’ anything remains a major question underlying all their (self-congratulatory … and self-exculpatory) posturing.

    And we see once again a now-familiar contemporary meme: the Stampede phenomenon and everything done by its adherents (and beneficiaries) was all done heroically as a ‘necessary’ thing and with ‘good intentions’ and thus nobody should waste time questioning it or them. (This was the essential message of the ‘Spotlight’ movie, although the media and Hollywood – as I noted in comments on it on an earlier thread here – have been careful to distance themselves from the Abuseniks and ‘victims’.)

  18. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1108AM:

    As to my “magpie” characterization, JR will simply deal with it – as almost always – by mere assertion: it’s all “crap” (and, but of course, we have his word on that … and nothing else).

    Then – had you been waitinggggg forrrrr ittttt? – an epithetical foray that tries to rope in “The Baltimore Catechism” as proof – doncha see? – that Catholics couldn’t possibly have “independent capabilities of thought and knowledge”.

    I would say that there is increasing food for thought to the effect that “The Baltimore Catechism” has more substance and value as a systematic approach to a well-lived life and social ordering than the congeries of mantras and incoherent ideas and emotional spasms currently offered by secularism and (what is inaccurately called) ‘liberalism’ these days.

    And as for the demonstration of “independent capabilities of thought and knowledge”, we might consider the many proffering of JR other Abuseniks here and, of a more theological and Scriptural bent, ‘Dan’.

  19. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1108AM:

    Then a further foray: seeking not to further explicate his bits here, JR will toss in some current political stuff, again – no surprise – for merely epithetical purposes.

    Followed – marvelously – by yet another demonstration of clinical projection: JR ‘sees’ “all bluster and insult with no gravitas and even less authority to judge”; he sees it … but (with amazing convenience) not in the mirror.

    Followed by an assertion that amounts to nothing but his personal pipedream: that “your whole world is going bye-bye”. First, I don’t think he’s established that global assertion at all.

    And second, one wonders as to the substance and “gravitas” any new world replacing it would actually provide, presided over by the “capabilities” of such as the Abuseniks and the fomenters of the Stampede.

  20. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1108AM:

    And then the remainder of the comment descends into JR’s preferred level of – again – epithet, encompassing my death and so forth.

    And – but of course – a final epithetical effort, this time having something to do with the Navy and then the queasy gender-bendy bits that are never far from his preoccupations.

    (The “Navy” bit perhaps prompted by my recent imagery – which he does not here try to refute – about “sonar”.)

    I have used the historical examples of Cher and Sarah Bernhardt because a) Cher has famously staged a number of final-departures-and-comebacks and b) the histrionic style of Sarah Bernhardt (accepted theatrical style in her own day) nicely captures the stagey histrionics displayed by Abuseniks under pressure. And I would point out that it is not I who have ever referred to another commenter as “Miss” or by any other feminizing epithetical usage, whereas both JR and ‘Dan’ have, presumably independently of each other, gone that route.

    But when they’ve got nothing else – which is so very often – Abuseniks revert to such bits almost as a matter of habit.

    • Dan says:

      Jim, Think you mispelled it- PUB-LYIN'. And the liar claims he has never "referred to another commenter as 'Miss' or by any other feminizing epithetical". Funny how liars so easily slip and fall flat on their face. I recall you first making references to me as "Madame Blavatsky". How does the shoe leather taste. I don't recall ever calling you "Miss". Maybe I said something like, "You cry and whimper worse than a little baby girl", but don't think I would have ever addressed you with an adult "feminizing epithetical".      Servant Share

    • Dan says:

      The pterodactyl has landed with a God-gram.– Don't you think I get tired of having to fight against people who condemn you? You know I will never take their side. I can see how their pride can go to their head, how they can be overpowering with the wisdom they think they have [p]. That is not going to do them a bit of good on Judgment Day. I am not going to judge them on how smart they are or how rude and how cruel they treat you. My judgment is on the kindness and love they show to one another. So don't worry about getting even with any of them, just keep teaching My Word and never stop believing in me. In the meantime keep doing what you are doing. Look how many times I've had to turn My cheek, CONSTANTLY, there isn't any break for me. Please, let Me handle everything, I love you. They already killed Me once and can not harm Me anymore. [Believe He's referring to the Holy Romans and that's why you display Him as a trophy, crucified in your churches.] They keep forgetting, I AM their judge, even now.
      Thus saith the Lord.

  21. Jim Robertson says:

    Darlin' you think like an old church lady. I mean one who was old when I was young. All pomposity.  Here's the rule du jour. You act like a bitch. You get called one. Just sayin'. If you consider yourself or your "thinking" as "pressure"? You can add self agrandisement to your list of sins. It's very clear you think very well of yourself and your POV. The rest of us don't. I say us because  There's Dan and you and me. What happened to your Halelu chorus? The peanut gallery that say how wonderful you are. Let's see some more of your fan mail.

    • malcolm harris says:

      On the 6th at 6.35 pm, we have JR in his usual mode……  slinging mud… in place of any rational thoughts. He reminds me of the school yard…. some kids just mouthing taunts and insults… it's his way of winning the dispute. Because in his mind everything depends on who wins the shouting match, and  therefore has the last word. 

      However there are some in the 'peanut gallery' who can actually see through his juvenile antics. Virtually he is part of a 'smoke screen' tactic.

      What the smoke screen must hide is the fact that basically the accusations against these priests are about criminal behaviour. As such it it a matter for the police and the courts. Not a matter for trial by media and the court of public opinion. But a very serious matter requiring due process of law.

      In this regard when a criminal case is brought against priests, as in Philidelphia, we should examine it all carefully. The District Attorney, Seth Williams, wheels out his star witness… to give the damning 'evidence'. 

      Usually the star witness turns out to be some paranoid drug addict, or some convicted criminal.

      Gee….no wonder I smell a rat?

  22. Publion says:

    As readers may have imagined, I’m quite content to allow the Abuseniks to demonstrate what I had been saying, and they’re making a pretty job of it indeed.

    But I can’t let the juiciest bit pass by without notice: on the 7th at 302AM ‘Dan’ will now proffer pastoral ministry to JR. And in the process – while delivering the Saying of the god-gram (in regard – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – to “Judgment Day) – ‘Dan’ refers to “My Word” and “My judgment” and “My cheek” and so on. Just where the distinction lies between (a, some, the, any, his) god and the persona ‘Dan’ has stitched together for himself (or ‘Himself’?) … is anybody’s guess.

    As things move along, it is even possible that ‘Dan’ does fancy himself (or Himself) as also possessed of that 007 badge and warrant I’d mentioned, making him perhaps some sort of deputy-Judge (and, boy, is he gonna get back at everyone who ever thought he was just a (fill in the blank)).

    And we see – as so very often – the familiar Abusenik scam: to question their (greatly questionable) material is to fail in “kindness and love”.

    I would say that to allow them to toss their stuff around without question would be a rather large failure in genuine “charity” (as opposed to the faux charity upon which the various types we see here always depend to ward off questions).

    • Dan says:

      Christians and catholics everywhere. Don't let the deceiver fool and trick you. Prophets do not speak on their own behalf, but God speaks through the prophet . Do not be deceived, these are not "My words" or "My judgment". When You see the "My" capitalized, then that signifies that these are the Words of the Lord Himself, speaking to His chosen ones, those who have an ear to hear. Beware because Satan has his workers trying to fool you and keep you from the Lord's truth, and publyin' is an expert at deception. "he gonna get back at everyone who ever thought he was a (peewee, demonic, lying, perverter of truth)". Might be time to stop your mocking before Judgment Day arrives sooner for you.   Servant Dan

  23. Dan says:

    Hey Malcolm, You say. "What the smoke screen must hide is the fact that basically the accusations against these priests are about criminal behavior. As such it it a matter for the police and the courts."

    Can't agree with you more. Let's stop all the smoke, open all the books in every diocese and bring all the cases to the police and the courts, especially current cases. I don't believe any victim would have a problem with that. Let's stop all excuses, lies, cover-ups and vatican secrecy, which would bring some respect back to a seriously fallen church. We can start with the Belgian child rape, abuse and molestation of 231 choir boys under the leadership of pope ratzingers brother. What could be a better start off point. Let's bring it all out into the light.

    • malcolm harris says:

      'Dan' ,on the 8th, does his bit to help the smoke screen along. Cos it all depends upon confusing the issue.

      Moral panic also helps create the smoke screen, What the public must fail to comprehend is that the alleged victim (or parents) usually go to the police. Personally can't think of any other catergory of  sex crime in which the employer reports the offence to the police. Remember the offence is not against the employer, but against the alleged victim. An offence that, by it's very nature, would be secretive and hidden. So how does 'Dan' expect the Bishop to know?   A mind-reader perhaps? Confession perhaps? Don't make me laugh…the perp wants to be respected by his peers… and not hated by them. So he doesn't confess. Yet the general public must always be conned into thinking that the Bishop knew and did nothing. 

      But the public must not question the narrative, because it's not in the lawyer's plan.. The plan calls for complete public acceptance of the shocking accusations…. and no questions asked.

      Always guilty in the court of public opinion. Sort of like the public opinion that cried out "Crucify Him"… when Pilate asked them what he should do with Jesus.


  24. Dan says:

    Malcolm, sounds to me, like the smoke comes from thee. When it all comes down to it, these crimes against children should have never occured in the first place, among religious hierarchy who make claims to be christian, holy, pure and loving, Godly people and yet commit, while hiding under that mask, the most disturbing, despicable atrocities against innocence. Be honest, come out of the shadows, come clean and admit fault. Instead all we hear is a bunch of lame excuses for the lack of honesty and truthfulness. Thank God that He sees everything and will be just to and in the end. You can count on it. Justice served.

  25. Dan says:

    Malcolm 2/8 @ 7:41 pm, says, "So how does 'Dan' expect the Bishop to know?" In many cases the crimes were reported by the child, the parents and worse, your own priests, to the bishops or superiors and their concerns were ignored, forgotten or just plain denied. Bishop George RAT-zinger is around a pedophile priest for forty years, and your telling me their was no hint, complaint or clue as to the disgusting crimes this priest was committing, right under their noses. I believe I do smell a rat, and it's a big rat.