Netflix’s ‘The Keepers’: Agenda-Driven Filmmaking Exploits a Nun’s Murder

Netflix : The Keepers

Netflix's The Keepers: Agenda before honesty

The 1969 unsolved disappearance and murder of a Baltimore nun, Sister Catherine Cesnik, certainly has all the makings of a compelling whodunnit. "Who killed Sister Cathy?" the trailer asks.

However, The Keepers, a multi-part "documentary" about the case airing on Netflix, is nothing but a bleary-eyed scavenger hunt trafficking in speculation, innuendo, rumor, discredited science, and a healthy heap of anti-Catholic bigotry. Anyone looking for an honest and clear-thinking analysis of this case will not find it here.

How can anyone believe this?

Netflix : The Keepers

Really, Jean?
Accuser Jean Wehner

The central thesis of The Keepers is that an alleged abusive priest, the now-deceased Rev. Joseph Maskell, can be tied to the disappearance and murder of Sr. Cathy. However, some of the central accusers in all of this, who claim that Maskell sexually abused them when they were young girls, have quite a bit of explaining to do.

For example, in 1995, a woman named Jean Wehner – whose claims play a central role in The Keepers – filed a civil lawsuit against Maskell under the name Jane Doe. What was uncovered in the course of her suit can only described as disturbing. It turns out that all of Wehner's claims of abuse surfaced through the dangerous and discredited practice of "repressed memory therapy."

It turns out that, according to court documents, Wehner has not just claimed that Rev. Maskell abused her in her life. Wehner has also claimed that she has somehow also been abused by:

  • four additional priests;
  • three or four religious brothers;
  • three lay teachers;
  • a police officer;
  • a local politician;
  • an uncle; and
  • two nuns.

Good grief. Really, Jean?

[***Click to read the source court documents yourself (pdf)***]
(Originally accessed at the site of writer Mark Pendergrast, author of the upcoming book,
Memory Warp: How the Myth of Repressed Memory Arose and Refuses to Die)

To say Wehner's claims are wild is an understatement. Not surprisingly, these inconvenient facts from the court documents were completely omitted from The Keepers.

Indeed, contrary to the series' corrupt attempts to give validity to "repressed memory therapy," there is zero doubt that "repressed memory" is an utter fraud. As Dr. Richard J. McNally, Professor and Director of Clinical Training in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, has written (pdf):

"The notion that traumatic events can be repressed and later recovered is the most pernicious bit of folklore ever to infect psychology and psychiatry. It has provided the theoretical basis for 'recovered memory therapy' — the worst catastrophe to befall the mental health field since the lobotomy era."

That pesky DNA

As if Wehner's outlandish history were not disrupting enough, in May, two days before The Keepers first aired on Netflix, the producers of the series received some really bad news. The body of Fr. Maskell had been exhumed back in February, and police announced that DNA connected to the murder scene of Sr. Cesnik did not match that of the deceased priest. (Maskell died in 2001 denying any abuse and any connection to Sr. Cathy's murder.)

Needless to say, this piece of inconvenient news put a big damper on Netflix's story and Wehner's insane tale about Fr. Maskell somehow once showing her Sr. Cathy's corpse.

Trying to get the facts out

Following the cue of other fact-challenged screeds against the Catholic Church (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), The Keepers tries to advance the ages-old anti-Catholic bigotry of the Church as a corrupt, all-powerful institution somehow able to exert its influence across all sectors of society, including law enforcement.

To its credit, however, the Archdiocese of Baltimore has made a decent effort to punch back against the wild and bigoted claims that litter Netflix's hit piece. For example, contrary to claims in the film, the archdiocese strongly contends that it was not made aware of sex abuse allegations against Fr. Maskell until "1992, more than 20 years after the abuse occurred." Any claim that the archdiocese knew about allegations against Maskell before 1992 "is speculation and it is false."

We encourage readers to check out the archdiocese's extensive rebuttal to The Keepers.

The bottom line: Make no mistake. The Keepers is not honest and clear-thinking filmmaking. The Keepers is a bigoted and bumbling mess whose investigative depth more resembles The Keystone Cops. This is unfortunate, because Sr. Cesnik deserves much, much more.


[EDITOR'S NOTE, 7/30/17: On the same day we published our post, published an excellent post by writer Mark Pendergrast, "The Dangerously Misleading Narrative Of 'The Keepers'." Check it out!]


  1. Publion says:

    In regard to the comment by ‘Amy’ (the 8th at 728AM):

    From what I have read in the BigTrial article by Pendergrast Wehner claims she had no memory of abuse until 1981, which happened to be a year after the publication of the book Michelle Remembers, a book about the then-current Satanic ritual abuse and her “repressed memories” of them. So it remains quite possible that while Wehner did not seek out a recovered-memory therapist until a later date, she was already familiar with the material about repressed/recovered memory.

    So Wehner may be veracious in her statement that she was “not in therapy” when she came up with those ‘memories’, but in light of the general publicity about this new ‘theory’ back then, then Wehner’s statement is not necessarily “the whole truth”.  And she certainly did go to a recovered/repressed memory therapist at some later point.

  2. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Amy’s comment of the 8th at 728AM:

    ‘Dissociation” is hypothetically a possible mechanism, but to be able to rule out other possibilities (including outright confabulation as well as inaccurate images presented by the memory – since ‘memory’ is not a photographic capacity and can be in error) requires a great deal of careful clinical examination. And that would have to be ‘disinterested’ examination, i.e. that the clinician does not already presume the probability of ‘dissociation’ before the examination.

    And it is very difficult to draw a conclusion without the corroboration of external evidence, otherwise the clinician must simply take the patient’s claims as veracious ‘reports’ and build on them from there. Which is never a good idea if you are seeking a full clinical comprehension.

    I would say that in regard to “credible abuse survivors” ‘Amy’ sets her bar far too low.

  3. Patrick McCarthy says:

    After watching the series and while I have reservations about the main witness / victim's accounts (Jean), I certainly think the brave women depicted in the film found some significant evidence that should be re examined by authorities.  I find it compelling that aside from Jean, several other women confirmed the abuse at the hands of the creep priest and I certainly think it noteworthy that Church officials may have been aware of that monster priests' behavior before 1969.  My late father was nearly abused by a priest in a St. Louis Catholic high school in 1957 and it destroyed his faith and turned him into a bitter anti Catholic.  I am gratetful whenever the bright spotlight of reason is shined thorugh the foggy chruchy talk and justifications / denials surrounding this horrible legacy of the Catholic Faith.        

  4. Dan says:

    I want to thank Bridget and Amy. It took two catholic women to have the guts to stand up for the truth and be willing stand for what they know to be right. Doesn't say much for the catholic men in this forum, those bent on making excuses and lying for the pedophile perverts in the church, let alone the suspected murderers of even one of their own. Despicable.

    The truth is becoming so convoluted, that it's hard to tell who really is promoting truth and who is more than willing to tell any lies, if it might protect the guilty and keep intact the false integrity of the holy roman catholic church.

    I see you all were very quick to tell how the DNA clears Joseph Maskell, but unwilling to mention that a women came forward, claiming that her husband, a friend of Maskell, came home around the time of the murder with his shirt covered in blood. Are you aware of any decently intelligent criminals, let alone a priest, that would commit the murder themselves. No decent person would be interested in hearing a lobsided story and catholic biased facts. Give us the whole truth, quit concealing important facts, and let us make an honest evaluation as to who we feel is right or wrong, guilty or innocent.

    As far as the catholic connection with the Baltimore Police involved in the molesting and coverup, not terribly surprising. In the S.F. Bay Area we have 30 plus cops, from seven police and sherriff depts. involved with the raping and prostitution of an underaged woman. Married men, and one has to wonder how many wonderful catholic police officers were involved in both this and the Maskell rapes, attrocities and coverups.

    Is it too much to ask for unbiased, fair, truthful and honest news reporting, whether coming from the secular side or so-called christian perspective. The fact that those claiming to be Christ-like, turn out to be more corrupt, liars and biased than secular news, represents one sad example of godliness of any type. God surely must be terribly impressed with all the dishonesty being spewed in this forum.  servant

  5. Mark Taylor says:

    "Doesn't say much for the catholic men in this forum, those bent on making excuses and lying for the pedophile perverts in the church…"

    What dispecable rubbish Dan talks! No-one here is defending child abuse! 

    But as Glenna J Kerker points out, Dan and Publion do a lot. Publion may be long-winded but he has good responses to Dan's drivel, and now I wish to respond to the last thing he said to me:

    1. I stand by what I said. Worshipping Mary is not the same as honouring her, which is all the Catholic Church does. Indeed, we are called to honour our parents in the 5th commandment. Dan is right about Moses not entering the promised land, but this wasn't because he worshipped an idol, it was because he took credit for God's doing when water came out of the rock.

    2. I still say Jesus was talking hyperbole. Don't forget he also said, "If your right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away."

    5. And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.” (Revelation 11:8 KJV) So much for your claim Dan that Babylon is Rome.

    Now back to 3 and 4. You certainly can't be better than the Catholic Church if you go on being condesending to Publion and calling him names. Therefore, I may as well remain Catholic. Besides, most Priests and Nuns are wonderful, as Bridget points out.

    • Mark Taylor says:

      Paragraph 3 should read, "Dan and Publion do clog up this forum a lot."

    • Dan says:

      Let's get this out of the way first. This is an open forum and you can jump in anytime you like and as much as you like. Glad to see you gave it some time before responding to me. Too bad you didn't give it more thought before responding as you have.

      "No-one here is defending child abuse!" I didn't say you were defending child abuse, but there sure are a handful defending, lying and making excuses for pedophiles, perverts and suspected murderers. For you to turn a blind eye to that is "dispecable" (sic). The correct spelling is despicable, better check your poor grammar and spelling (Just treating you as publiar treats anyone who challenges his stuff, and especially me. See how that feels).

      Dan's "drivel" but publiar's "good responses". So now you're defending liars and pedophile and pervert excusers, just as long as they're you're wonderful catholic cohorts. And you're under the impression, Mark, that as a good Christian I'm supposed to accept the compulsive lies and mocking of my God, my beliefs and myself, and just not defend myself. Maybe someday, but not today! Publiar and the rest of you are allowed to defend your false religion, even with it's liars, deceptions, manipulations, misinterpretations and false teachings. Are you telling me it's best I just allow 1.1 billion followers to continue in their deceptions and falsehoods and not care that their very souls are headed for destruction. I'll quit when God my Father tells me that it's no use trying to plant seed that's falling on deaf ears and bad ground. Maybe you should give it a little more thought, before you state your biased opinion of publiar and myself. And by the way, God hates the scoffer and mocker, most likely more than I do. He's the one who will bring his wrath, mine are just words.  servant


    • Dan says:

      1) To continue, you and the church can make your claims that you don't worship Mary, "Queen of Heaven". Even that phrase is an example of blatant worship and idolatry. By example the church worships many false gods (saints, popes, statues, artwork, etc.etc,), but Mariology, Hailing, bowing to and venerating her, stands above them all. Convince us all you want that you don't worship her, the proof is in the cult's actions (lourdes, fatima, rosary, medals, statues, roses, candles, incense, ridiculous idolizing prayers, etc.).

      2) Well since it's "hyperbole", then we don't have to take it literally, and in fact we can call much of the Bible "hyperbole", prophecy and parables, and our cult doesn't have to understand the meaning and we can pretend it doesn't refer to us, and that gives us every right to disobey the Word and go against God's Holy Scripture. And then your cult claims that it is the One and Only True Church of God and listens to his instruction. DESPICABLE!

      3+4) Again no argument, challenge or disagreement to these comments? Funny the publiar claims I presented no examples of "shortcomings of the church", when plain as day I listed "(i.e. lying, slandering and falsely accusing, not obeying His commands, repetitive prayers to a false goddess, etc. etc.)". On top of that I've presented examples many times of their and his lies, idolatry, sexual immorality, greed and false gospel, and he insists on lying and claiming I have nothing. Nothing for a closed mind, eyes, ears and heart. It's the modus operandi of the cult.

      5) Allow me to enlighten you. In Rev 11:8 (KJV) the word "spiritually" is often translated as figuratively, symbolically or prophetically "called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified". At times it seems "all roads lead to Rome". Lets take the catholic UCCSB (NAB) version's word describing the location of that great city.

      "Their corpses will lie in the main street of the great city, which has the symbolic names 'Sodom' and 'Egypt,' where indeed their Lord was crucified." Rev. 11:8*

      *footnote from 11.8 (NAB) – The great city: this expression is used constantly in Revelation for Babylon, i.e., Rome; Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:18; 18:2, 10, 21. "Sodom" and "Egypt": symbols of immorality and oppression of God's people. Where indeed their Lord was crucified: not the geographical but the symbolic Jerusalem that rejects God and his witnesses, i.e., Rome, called Babylon in Rev 16-18; see note on Rev 17:9 and Introduction.

      I guess we can say that's right from the horses mouth, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

      Your last paragraph, all there is left to say is, "For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. For every tree is known by its own fruit." Luke 6:43-44

      "Make a tree good and it's fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good?" Matthew  12:33-34

    • Dan says:

      Hey Mark, I reread my last quote and didn't want you to think that I was referring to you as one of the vipers, among the brood of vipers. The viper or snake knows who he is and should be disputing everything I've said as soon as my "stuff" is posted. So looking forward to that. Not!

  6. Anonymous says:

    I, too, am a Catholic. I also happen to work in a parish. I also knew Maskell. I can tell you that he made the parish staff uneasy, and that's putting it lightly. He was a cunning, manipulative man, and I truly believe evil lived in him. I have also had the unfortunate task of dealing with claims of abuse, not revolving around Maskell but someone else. I believe the women's stories in the documentary. If you struggle to believe Jean's stories, then focus on the other women who came forward who's claims were not based on repressed memories. People struggle to come forward with accusations of sexual abuse all the time, because they are afraid no one will believe them. It's people like you in these comments that further fuel the fear of reporting abuse. There's strength in numbers, and that's what these women found when others started coming forward. You also have to realize that the Catholic Church is a giant. They are more concerned with protecting their own. I fully believe the accounts of the documentary. You are free to disagree with me, that is your right. But I will not get into debates. I merely wanted to state my opinion. 

  7. Publion says:

    I will go down the list of comments as they appear on the site, not necessarily chronologically.

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1051PM:

    ‘Dan’ has a problem: I had clearly asked (the 8th at 150PM) just precisely when the early Christian community (often referred to as ‘the primitive Christian community’) morphed into “the church” that constitutes ‘Dan’s oh-so-necessary evil-monster for his cartoons. And this is not the first time I’ve asked that question.

    Whatever is ‘Dan’ to do?

    First, he puts on the Wig of Cocky Condescension and, having assumed that pose, asks me to “try to follow this”.

    And what, then, is this “this”?

    • Dan says:

      Oh yes! And you're simply a catholic saint, an angel waiting to get his wings. Do you just not get it or do those ears just fail to hear. The Christian community has been and will forever be the Christian community separate from "the church", your church or any manmade religion and all their false gospels. So I'm not interested and could care less about what or when any of you morphed into, because you're separate from the body of God and Christ. Your cults go by their own rules and have little clue of what the Lord asks of His true followers. That's why I don't subscribe to any religion, but your dream that I'm all alone is completely false, and just another wish of your lying imagination. Instead of watching your evil monster cartoons, you might want to try reading the Bible for yourself, use the brain God gave you, instead of answering with the programmed garbage memorized from your education, whatever that may have been. It's so strange that catholics, including five priests I've talked to, come up with the same excuses for calling their pompous leaders Father or Holy Father. Do what the Word asks or disobey God's Word and stop making any claims about following Him, when you prefer and desire to go to Mary, your "Queen of the Heavens". Stop insisting that your pagan beliefs are Godly beliefs, when you refuse and prefer to do the opposite of what He asks.  servant of the True God

  8. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1051PM:

    That “this” turns out to be merely an assertion – yet again – that the Church is not at all “the Christian community” but instead is a “totally different entity from ‘the Christian community’”. But that’s precisely the point of my question (that ‘Dan’ is evading here as he has all along): when did such a transmutation happen? How did it come about?

    Was it before or after, for example, the Church defined the canon (i.e. the content) of the New Testament? Was it before or after the Easter Letter of Athanasius of Alexandria in 367? Or the Councils of Carthage of 397 and 419?

    Once again we see that the fundie approach – upon which ‘Dan’ has piggy-backed his own agenda – is based on a mere presumption that cannot stand up to historical reality, which is why the fundies and ‘Dan’ inevitably dodge the problematic question.

    And as we see here, then, ‘Dan’ simply wants his groundless assertion and presumption accepted … and then his cartoon games can start from there. In other words – and regular readers will be familiar with this image of mine – ‘Dan’ and the fundies want to start the play at first (or, if you wish second or third) base with no at-bat at all.

    • Dan says:

      If by "the Church" you're referring to the catholic church, then I've informed you that they only organized the canon and didn't write any of the wisdom in the book. Your cult gets credit for putting it together, but not prophetically receiving the Word and it's wisdom, and maybe that's why they feel not much need to obey it. They have no part in the Christian community of the Almighty God. Once again, I have no interest in your pompous history or pagan traditions which have no bearing on following the truth of God and Christ.  servant

  9. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1051PM:

    In his second paragraph he huffs that he hath indeed “given several examples” that I have “previously denied”.

    His “example” of calling-no one-Father would result in the Bible saying that one cannot call one’s male biological parent ‘father’. Which means that ‘Dan’s “example” leads to a genuinely nonsensical conclusion.

    His repeating-of-prayers-like-the-heathens “example” could and far more probably does mean that one should not simply toss off prayers in a mindless extended string, in the belief that a) the sheer number of repetitions itself is all that is required for the prayer to be efficacious and b) it is sufficient for a believer to rattle off such extended strings and take no concern for the interior life of the soul or the participation in God’s loving plan for His Creation. Neither (a) nor (b) are Catholic positions.

    And thus his “examples” do not hold much water at all. But they do serve to platform his penultimate concluding epithetical assertion that “your phony church has not one thing to do with Christ’s teachings, God’s salvation, or adherence to the gospels” .

    • Dan says:

      And all there is to this post is more excuses for why catholics refuse to follow or obey the simple teachings that God asks of us. You seem to have become the man of a million excuses and lies, whether that's in regard to Biblical principles or in defending the pedophiles, perverts and murderers of your Klan. And you do pretty well with your lying against innocent victims of your despicable cult. Yes, and that would include myself.

  10. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1051PM:

    And to top it all off, ‘Dan’ doth – having donned his full faux-papal Wig – denounce Catholics as not being “Christians, whatsoever”. We are to accept that ‘Dan’ is, however, and we must take not only his word for it, but the word of the phantasmagoric wonderland crew that appears to him in his bathroom mirror séances.

  11. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1059PM:

    ‘Dan’s problem here is that Paul clearly referred in his text to the pagan Greeks and the Jews (and didn’t – not to put too fine a point on it – refer to Catholics or even Christians at all).

    ‘Dan’s evasively manipulative and deceitful solution to that inconvenience is to … slyly include “pagan liars who don’t think it’s imperative to follow God and His gospel”. Thus ‘Dan’ will simply make a convenient addition to the Scriptural text, which addition itself is merely his cartoon presumption that Catholics are “pagan liars” and so on. Again, if you start the plays on first or second or third, and don’t require an at-bat, then the ‘Dan’/fundie team is surely World Series-capable.

    • Dan says:

      Here we have it, the purveyor of all truth will again attempt to manipulate and change the meaning of God's Word to suit his corrupt agenda.

      "To Greeks and non-Greeks alike, to the wise and the ignorant, I am under obligation; that is why I am eager to preach the gospel also to you in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: for Jew first, and then Greek." Romans 1:14-16 (NAB)

      Now any catholics who believe like Mark, that publiar gives "good responses", which by that I would assume he means honest or truthful ones, please explain to me how the previous verses refer only to "pagan Greeks and Jews". His message was to everyone in Rome, even the ignorant. was there only "pagan Greeks and Jews" habitating Rome? If you want to still believe you're not being deceived, brainwashed, and lied to, then I guess there isn't much more to say to you.

      No, this message to the Romans is not only for Paul's time, but is prophetic and shall cover all idolators until Christ's return. Of course, pagan liars and deceivers who don't accept prophecy, can go on believing that the message does not pertain to himself or his false religion. Apparently he conveniently overlooked that the message was also to the ignorant. servant of the Almighty God



  12. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1135PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ once again opens with an epithetical manipulation referring to my supposed “ignorance and lack of Scriptural knowledge”.

    Because – doncha see? – in verses 22 and 23 of the first chapter of Romans Paul says “While claiming to be wise, they become fools” and so on. What does this prove? Well, if you put on ‘Dan’s speshull glasses then it should be clear as day that this refers to the Catholic Church.

    As I said in a previous comment on this thread, if you aren’t wearing ‘Dan’s glasses and aren’t indentured to his whackeries, this pericope could quite nicely describe ‘Dan’.

    Evading Paul’s clear reference to the Exodus worship of the golden bullock, ‘Dan’ will fall back on the usual fundie presumptions and conflations: by reverencing statues and paintings, then Catholics are ‘worshipping’ them and thus fall afoul of the first commandment.

    But that position would require that Paul was also rejecting any image of Christ (“in the heavens”) as well as Mary (“on the earth”).

    • Dan says:

      I'm sorry to disappoint you publiar, but Romans 1 most definitely applies to your cult. The only thing missing to the prophecy is that Paul didn't elaborate when describing, "Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." One could only imagine what wrath the Holy and Pure God would have in store for priests and hierarchy who are fond of repeated raping or molesting innocent little boys or teens. Do you think God wants to hear your repetitive excuses or lying deceptions for their disgusting, nasty perversions, publiar? Good luck with that.   servant of the God of Justice

  13. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1135PM:

    And do not many Christian religious polities – Protestant as well as the Catholics – have pictures of Christ in their worship-places and even in the homes of the adherents?

    But this bit is not problematic for ‘Dan’ because he doesn’t (or realizes he can’t) belong to any religious polity except and unless he is in charge of it. Thus the Church-of-One, with the Prophetic Servant ‘Dan’ presiding  … over the congregation of one, namely the aforementioned Prophetic Servant ‘Dan’.

    Thus, relieving himself of the complexities of belonging to any religious polity, ‘Dan’ can happily set up shop tossing his plop in any direction and he can be sure of hitting something ‘evil’ and ‘pagan’.

    • Dan says:

      Yes, and if they're not bowing to their false gods and goddesses, popes or pastors, then they're bowing and idolizing the almighty dollar. Either way it's idolatry that I prefer to have no part in. So you can make your claims as to my mental state, but at least I'm not dumb enough to go against the Creator and bow to idols of any kind. This is why I refuse to belong to any religion, let alone those plagued with lying hypocrites. Enjoy your popcorn and pagan flavored Kool-Aid. Don't forget to end your ignorance and stupidity with more mocking.

  14. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1135PM:

    And even before we get to that point, we are faced with the textual fact that the Exodus pericope specifically says “anything” (‘Dan’ even conveniently scream-capped it); but a “thing” is not a “person”. So once again we are into ‘Dan’s ever so self-servingly convenient presumption-ville here.

    And beyond all that, we still confront the ‘Dan’/fundie presumptive conflation of ‘reverence’ with ‘worship’, which doesn’t hold water in light of Catholic teaching or dogma or even practice.

    Exodus and Paul were concerned with the worship of idols and the ‘Dan’/fundie switcheroo scam is to presume and insist that using statues and paintings to support the prayer-life of the faithful is somehow the same thing as what Exodus and Paul were denouncing.

    And no matter that ‘Dan’ chose the NAB text from which to draw his quotations, his effort to impose the ‘Dan’/fundie cartoon upon the quotations is the lethal mistake and failure here.

    Nor is any of that mistake and failure resolved by ‘Dan’s concluding stabs at epithet.

    • Dan says:

      The master manipulator, deceiver and liar thinks he can accuse me of a "fundie switcheroo scam", saying in Exodus the writer states ANYTHING, but a "thing" is not a "person". Are you catholics buying this deceiving nonsense from publiar? The quote before says clear as day – "While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an IMAGE OF MORTAL MAN…" Romans 1:22,23

      Again when God is condemning the making and worship of idols in Isaiah 44:9 - "All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame." "He works with chisel and plane and carves it into a HUMAN FIGURE." Isaiah 44:13

      One more Baruch 6:3 – "And in Babylon you will see gods of silver and gold and wood, carried shoulder high, to cast fear upon the nations." Carried shoulder high, just like in your Fatima Festivals and other idol worshipping ceremonies. Baruch 6:8,9 – "People bring gold, as though for a girl fond of dressing up, and prepare crowns for the heads of their gods." Have you seen Mary of Fatima with an oversized gold crown on her head?

      How do you catholics put up with such a lying accuser, perverter of any truth, deceiver and manipulator of Biblical Scripture and defender of pedophiles and perverts. If he's a good example of a strong catholic, then he alone would have been enough to make me leave this evil cult. Problem is that I've run into several liars from the church, but this insistently deceiving creep tops them all. He is trying to bring you down into the Hell he's headed for.  servant of the God of Just Revenge

      P.S. You will receive your just reward for the ignorant lies and deception you spew in this forum. How can you sleep with your evil conscience, Hypocrite Liar.

  15. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 338AM:

    After opening with some of his usual I’m Not/You Are epithetical bits (about “Looney Tunes” and cartoons generally), and a pearl-clutching huff about my “attempts to accuse [him] of an agenda”, ‘Dan’ will get down to doing his business in the second paragraph.

    Where – had you been waitttingggggggg forrrrr ittttt? – he merely repeats his assertion that “the catholic hierarchy is the source of its false teachings”, this time larded with a further riff on that theme.

    “Lourdes and Fatima” (capitalization supplied) are, to the extent they are “worship ceremonies”, liturgical ceremonies worshipping  – not to put too fine a point on it – God.

    And the many assorted scientifically inexplicable events associated with those two sites are enough to give any rational person serious pause. (Which might well exclude ‘Dan’, but that’s as may be and is hardly a surprise.)

    And in a “P.S.” ‘Dan’ now tries to insist that he would never be a Catholic. Yet there remains his “we” comment I noted above in his comment to ‘Bridget’. ‘Dan’ needs a script-bible, which in Hollywood series or film production means a central fact-compendium concerning the eidesis that keeps the scripts from contradicting themselves from scene to scene or from episode to episode.

    • Dan says:

      "Lourdes and Fatima"  What statue do you see displayed at these "liturgical ceremonies"? Mary, "Queen of Heaven". What statue do you observe drowning in roses? Mary. What statue do you see on the shoulders of several men? Mary. What statue do you see almost falling over from the huge gold crown on her small head? Mary. What prayer do you hear them pray over and over. Hail Mary, the rosary. What does God's Word say of this type of prayer? "But when you pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathens do: for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking." Matthew 6:7 (KJV)  "And when you pray, do not babble on like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words." Matthew 6:7 (NIV) Longwinded liars pray longwinded prayers. Heathens or pagans, take your pick, publyin'.

      All this is obvious proof that your church is worshipping Mary, "Queen of Heaven". Are you going to allow a lying deceiver claim that this is the "worshipping [of] – not to put too fine a point on it – God." Publiar and your wicked cult is piling lies on top of lies, in the hopes that they will deny you eternal life, and try to lead you instead into the depths of Hell. Don't fall for their evil tricks and deceptions.  servant of the One True God

  16. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 413AM:

    Apropos of God-knows-what, ‘Dan’ now asserts that the Catholic hierarchy are “perfectionists”, a toss from far left field that is not rendered any more comprehensible by his further connection to their (allegedly) having “the market cornered when it comes to sinfulness and weakness”.

    “The crooked timber of humanity” (using here Isaiah Berlin’s iconic phrase) demonstrates so many historical examples of humanity’s “sinfulness and weakness” that one must wonder if this bit can be considered anything other than self-serving hyperbole on ‘Dan’s part.

    Thus however his bit here serves to platform a further recitation from ‘Dan’s 3×5 plop pile.

  17. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 413AM:

    But I would say this: while it may well be true that “mocking God’s servants” (merely because of the fact that they are God’s servants) is indeed tantamount to “mocking  God”, yet that presumes a) that ‘Dan’ is indeed God’s servant (rather than the indentured servant of his own delusionality) and that b) ‘Dan’ accurately puts forward the message of Scripture in his interpretation of the pericopes he selects.

    Neither (a) nor (b) has been demonstrated to be more than delusional posturing in ‘Dan’s case. And mocking (as well as debunking) the plop he tosses is surely not “mocking God”. Somebody has to do it. (About which see more below in my comment on a ‘Mark Taylor’ comment.)

    Readers’ attention is also invited to ‘Dan’s concluding string of epithets:

    Do I have a “speech inpediment”? Perhaps even “a lisp”? Readers may suss these bits as they will.

    And – with a queasily repellent sublimity – this reputed “servant” or “Servant” and so forth then tries to bring it home with the bit about  “this is how pedophiles talk after too much oral sex with minors” and “Sicko!”. ‘Dan’ is a  reely reely spiritual ‘prophet’ and ‘servant/Servant’ of God, doncha see? His mirror tells him so, every day and in every way.

  18. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 429AM:

    Here I will simply recall a point I have made before: while ‘Dan’ may indeed have had “personal experience”, there remains the necessity of determining if this “experience” is a genuine experience of God (one might refer to his material here to see if there any “fruits” of such an experience to be seen) or if this “personal experience” is rather merely the fruits of his own delusionality (embedded upon a particularly unripe and somewhat repellent personality).

    And then another ‘mother-cut’ bit.

    Readers may consider as they will.

  19. Publion says:

    In regard to the comment by ‘Patrick McCarthy’ of the 8th at 601PM:

    I certainly don’t think the deceased Maskell was suitable for the priesthood, if even the non-murder claims about him are true.

    But once we are into the echo-chamber dynamic of a Stampede, then one has to consider whether the claims and accusations we are hearing and reading are veracious and factual or are rather the result of the atmosphere of Stampede.

    This is a form of what doctors call “differential diagnosis”: granted we have a symptom (i.e. the accusations) then of what particular disease (i.e. the nature and source of the accusation) is the complaint a symptom?

  20. Publion says:

    In regard to the comment by ‘Patrick McCarthy’ of the 8th at 601PM:

    I would further apply the ‘differential diagnosis’ analogy: if we take, for example, the ‘dissociative identity’ claim or any claim of psychological or emotional pain and even ‘harm’, we have to establish first – and before coming to a conclusion – what the source of the complaint might be. This requires distinguishing among many possibilities, not excluding the possibility that the patient’s self-report of ‘pain’ and even ‘harm’ are somehow confabulated (a formal term, the colloquial equivalent of which is ‘made up’ or ‘imagined’).

    But this is precisely the problematic but necessary step that Victimism had to eradicate in order to create ‘space’ for a slew of victimization claims and assertions: “believe the children” was the mantra in the McMartin Pre-School Ritual Satanic Child Abuse case and similar cases back in the day; it is utterly ‘insensitive’ and ‘re-victimzing’ to question any (already presumed) ‘victim’ claims and stories … as the Victimist dogma would have it nowadays.

  21. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the comment by ‘Patrick McCarthy’ of the 8th at 601PM:

    The Victimist stories and ‘Dan’s cartoons – and the Abusenik material we once saw so often here – all share this common fundament: you can’t Keep The Ball Rolling if you start asking questions; you have to start the play on-base and not require an at-bat (i.e. you have to start by presuming the veracity of the stories and then the game can go on from there).

    There is indeed a lot of “foggy” stuff in all of this, and shining “the bright spotlight of reason” is indeed what needs to be done. But that is precisely what is not done and has not been done.

    And thus the concluding bit about “this horrible legacy of the Catholic Faith” hardly earns a place as an instance of “the bright spotlight of reason”.

  22. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 611PM:

    Here – and yet again – ‘Dan’ will smarmily use somebody – in this case “two catholic women” (sic) – as pack-mules to carry his own agenda.

    Thus he can take a swipe at “catholic men in this forum” (he’s agin’ Kathliks – doncha see? – and apparently agin’ “men” too … for whatever reasons).

    And is Maskell indeed formally and officially “suspected” in the murder, or is this just a convenient and self-serving gambit by ‘Dan’ (i.e. if anybody at all claims that X is “suspected” of murder, then X is truly a murder suspect)?

  23. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 611PM:

    He then doth intone that “the truth is becoming so convoluted” – it’s a nice sound-bite, but actually we haven’t yet at all established what “the truth” is that “is becoming so convoluted”. ‘Dan’ hopes you haven’t noticed that problem with his stuff here.

    And the inconvenient fact of the DNA not being Maskell’s?

    First, the lack of suitably matching DNA does not “clear” Maskell, although it leaves open only the possibility of conspiracy involving some third party (which ‘third party’ will suddenly appear; see below).

    Second, he merely waves it all away. Because – we are now informed – “a women … came forward” (that sooo-familiar Stampede phrase) to say that her husband came home “around the time of the murder with his shirt covered in blood”.

    What is the reference for this new bit?

    When did the woman come forward? And “around the time of” is rather – not to put too fine a point on it – unspecific: the same night, a day later, a week later … or what?

  24. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 611PM:

    And having tossed up this almost too –perfect bit of a story, ‘Dan’ then indulges in a demonstration of his ‘thinking’ chops: are we “aware”, he condescendingly queries, “of any decently intelligent criminals” (“let alone a priest”, he tosses in ridiculously) “that [sic] would commit the murder themselves”?

    Let’s think about that: are there any murderers anyone can think of who themselves actually committed the murder(s) for which they were convicted? There are – ‘Dan’ would have it – none; all the ones who committed the murder(s) themselves are – by operation of ‘Dan’s cartoon posing of the question here – not “decently intelligent”. Thus all murders by “decently intelligent criminals” would have to be conspiracies, in which somebody else actually committed the murder.

    One is reminded of the glaring illogic so well satirized in the Monty Python “Holy Grail” ‘trial’ of the suspected witch.

  25. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 611PM:

    Anyway, ‘Dan’ doth go on, the involvement of the Baltimore police in the (alleged coverup) is rendered credible because – ‘Dan’s logic and ‘thinking’ goes – out where he lives (the “S.F. Bay Area” … and why is that not surprising?) “we have” a large number of police from a number of agencies “involved with the raping and prostitution of an underaged woman”. Thirty police agents involved in the case of a single woman?

    And – the horror! – they are “married” (‘Dan’s agin’ “married men” too, it seems).

    But the logic here is this: if anybody from an organization (allegedly) does something wrong, then it’s fair to presume that all the agents of the organization do so everywhere and all the time. Historical thought is – for ‘Dan’ – easy-peezy, as it is for all cartoonists.

    One wonders why ‘Dan’ hasn’t taken to the hustings to demand the delegitimizing of all police agencies everywhere. That’s how he does it with the Church, and surely the police (and the judges and courts too) must also be on his ploppy hit-list. Has he been out in front of any police stations or court-houses accosting police officers the way he has admitted accosting Catholics at their parishes?

  26. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 611PM:

    And in conclusion, and right before our very eyes, ‘Dan’ will change Wigs: now he dons the Wig of Exasperated Decency and Truthiness to plaintively bleat the aria “Is it too much to ask …?”. But the Wig is just a Wig, and the plaintive bleat is just a pose; when he gets right down to the nub of the aria, it’s just another plop-toss as usual.

    Topped off with the reminder that “God” “surely must be terribly impressed with all the dishonesty being spewed in this forum”.

    But the key question remains: whence cometh “all the dishonesty”? This is a question ‘Dan’ will not take to his bathroom mirror because he cannot. If he did, his head would explode.

  27. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Mark Taylor’s of the 9th at 720AM:

    In regard to MT’s statement that I help to “clog up this forum a lot”:

    That is certainly not my intention. It’s an open forum and MT is welcome to put up as much as he likes. There is no message a reader will get from this site to the effect that ‘Publion has used up all the allowable comment-space today and your comment is therefore rejected’. I encourage MT and everyone else to comment.

    My purpose is to make the best possible use of the stuff that ‘Dan’ so conveniently and helpfully brings to this site from precincts of mind and internet where most of us would prefer never to go.

    Much of his stuff is anti-Catholic from the fundie precincts. I don’t think many Catholics ever get a chance to hear or read this type of stuff, but it’s out there. And we have thus an opportunity to see what that stuff is and then – for my part – I proffer responses to that material.

    A lot of it – as we have seen – is more ‘theological’ than precisely topical (i.e. on the Catholic Abuse Matter). But it is virulently (if also somewhat dementedly) anti-Catholic and it is deeply entwined with the Stampede.

    And I try to provide a service to readers, especially but not limited to Catholic readers: I offer some thoughts on how this material might be rebutted or at least clarified. In the process – I am happy to think – readers might be moved to do further reading and research on their own, even into a Catholic ethos and universe they might wish to comprehend more fully.

    • Dan says:

      Oh yes! And what a service you provide to readers. Lies, slander, deception and excuses, all for the benefit of your cult's protection of it's clergy of pedophile and perverted priests, bishops and popes and their enablers. Like I've said, You are a catholic saint in line to earn his wings.

  28. Publion says:

    On the 9th at 146PM ‘Dan’ will bleat piously that “this is an open forum” and so on.

    As we shall see in this sequence of comments, however, ‘Dan’s bleat is largely undermined by his own basic stance: if you don’t agree with ‘Dan’ then you are at best “ignorant” and “stupid” and at worst “evil” and a “defender of” and so on.

    Having gotten that point out of the way first, let us proceed to his comments.

  29. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 146PM:

    Faced with his accusatory characterization about those (who disagree with him) as “defending child abuse” ‘Dan’ will seek to evade and avoid what he has said by now creating a distinction without a difference: in this word-game, he now says that he wasn’t accusing MT – doncha see? – but rather that “there sure are a handful defending, lying and making excuses for …” and so on (including that “suspected murderers” bit again).

    If you question ‘Dan’s cartoons (which are also the fundie and Stampede cartoons) – doncha see? – then you must be and can only be “defending …” and so on. This either-or bit is merely the necessary requirement for sustaining the cartoons; if you question you complicate and a good cartoon can’t be kept going that way.

    ‘Dan’ and the fundies and the Abuseniks share this common fundament as well: it’s their way or the hell-way. Either you accept their stuff or you are a “defender” and “evil” and on and on.

  30. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 146PM:

    ‘Dan’ then engages in some spelling correction (accurately, but has he read his own stuff in that regard?). While in this sequence ‘Dan’ will try – at times – to assure MT that ‘Dan’ isn’t against MT personally, yet here that pose dissolves as ‘Dan’ goes after MT (because I correct ‘Dan’s spelling mistakes, so ‘Dan’ will do it to MT so MT – who suddenly has morphed into being ‘Dan’s target here – can “see how that feels”). Not to worry, MT; ‘Dan’ will get his Friendly Wig back on in a little while.

    Unsurprisingly, ‘Dan’ doesn’t take kindly to a) having his own stuff characterized as “drivel” let alone b) seeing my material being characterized as “good responses”.

    And instantly – with a marvelous lack of self-awareness – ‘Dan’ deploys his (very very predictable) solution: MT is now “defending liars and pedophile and pervert excusers”. And this – ‘Dan’ is sure – is merely a matter of Catholics ganging up on him (just like they always do, and always for no reason at all that ‘Dan’ can imagine – except that they are evil and recognize his divinely-perfused goodness and rightness.

    Thus his basic cartoon and his basically cartoonish thought process.

  31. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 146PM:

    ‘Dan’ then works in another element of his cartoon with the slyly-inserted by-the-by that ‘Dan’ is – had you been waitttinggggggg forrrrrrrr itttttttttt? – “a good Christian”.

    Having thus donned the Wig of Good Christian-hood ‘Dan’ can now deploy it evasively to excuse his performances here: is he – the pearls tightly clutched – “supposed to accept the compulsive lies and mocking of my God, my beliefs and myself”?

    ‘Dan’s god is not the God of generally-accepted reference here; ‘Dan’s god is the delusionality to which he is indentured, in the service of which he uses God as just another stage-prop for his own oh-so-necessary performances.

    ‘Dan’s “beliefs” yet remain to be adequately distinguished from his delusions.

    And ‘Dan’s very own “self” … let readers judge as they may.

  32. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 146PM:

    And – pearls still tightly clutched – should not ‘Dan’ then “defend” himself? But ‘Dan’ doesn’t defend himself; he merely epithetically tosses plop at anyone who doesn’t buy his act here. That’s his idea of ‘defending’ himself – he merely plop-tosses at those who differ.

    And a more mature person would “defend” his material rather than assume that if you disagree with him then you are ‘attacking’ him. But ‘Dan’ can’t defend his material because it is cartoonish at its core and ‘Dan’s is a cartoonish mind in the first place.

    So we get this love-me-love-my-dog strategy instead. It’s all he got.

  33. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 146PM:

    This is followed by another of ‘Dan’s favorite poses, that of Tribune of the Catholic-bethumped Masses (a more advanced form of Speshull Deputy-Dawg of the Divine).

    Do we expect him to “allow” all this to continue?

    ‘Dan’ then launches into the aria “Are you telling me …?”, belting out that he will never “quit”. No, he won’t because he can’t  because his delusionality is (barring a Lourdes-like miracle) most likely permanent and whatever it is that appears to him in his bathroom mirror isn’t about to let him go, nor he it.

    And on the basis of this pose, ‘Dan’ will utter a God’ll-getcha bit; because – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ only takes orders from God and if ‘Dan’ is taking orders directly from God then ya reely reely don’t wanna mess with him, or disagree with him, or question him. Neato.

    Oh, and if you don’t agree with him then you must be “biased”. For ‘Dan’s cartoon, there can be no other explanation for disagreement.

    Oh, and God’ll hate-ya too, because … well, because of the usual ‘Dan’ reasons.

  34. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 316PM:

    Here we get a rehash of his major 3×5 plop-pile points, all of which we have seen before.

    Thus his first point, but this time including “saints, popes, statutes, artwork, etc. etc.” as “false gods”. And we see again his conflation of “venerating” and “worship”. He shouldn’t be so dismissive of Lourdes, though; Lourdes may be his only chance.

    His second point raises a useful point, however. Here he displays nicely the fundie aversion (like vampires from holy water) to what is called in Biblical studies “literary criticism”, i.e. that the Bible contains numerous and various literary styles and devices and one therefore must be careful when dealing with Biblical material. (Which nicely exemplifies my point in a very recent comment on this thread about the Bible, like the ‘air’ or the deep ocean, being a complex and dynamic layering.)

  35. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 316PM:

    This demonstrated complexity is gall-and-wormwood to the fundie approach, which has taken the essential Protestant insight to its furthest extreme, i.e. that the Bible is as clear as bell to anyone who opens and reads it under (the impression) of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

    MT nicely gets to the nub of it with his example of Jesus instructing that if your eye causes you to sin, then rip it out. Has ‘Dan’ thus “mutilated” himself (to use a term of ‘Dan’s) as a “good” and “true” Christian apparently should? Or is ‘Dan’ merely without-sin?

  36. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 316PM:

    In his “3+4” paragraph, ‘Dan’ demonstrates nicely and yet again that he has (conveniently) conflated “claims” and “examples”. But his “examples” are mere accusations that are not supported by any material that stands up to examination, as we have seen in the many instances where his claims and assertions and accusations and characterizations have been examined.

    Thus ‘Dan’ has not presented “examples”; he has merely tossed out claims and expects them to be believed or else one must be “stupid” and “ignorant” and maybe “evil” and so on and on and on.

    Talk about a “closed mind”. But if ‘Dan’ opened his mind his head would explode. His “modus operandi” is to conflate cartoon accusations and claims with “examples” and ‘proof’, larding it all with proof-text pericopes he has selected – though which he doesn’t really understand.

  37. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 316PM:

    On then to his fifth point, where he cawn’t help himself and so assumes the Pose of Condescension; when ‘Dan’ says he’s going to “enlighten” you, turn up the house lights because he’s going to start blowing a lot of distracting and manipulative cartoon smoke and fog.

    Then – with an apparently marvelous and oblivious incoherence – he doth lecture that “the word ‘spiritually’ is often translated as figuratively, symbolically or prophetically” (italics mine). But these terms are straight out of the literary-criticism toolbox that ‘Dan’ has just inveighed against in his second point.

    This is where you wind up sooner or later (and usually sooner) with ‘Dan’s cartoon Scriptural chops.

  38. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 316PM:

    But ‘Dan’s “modus operandi” is limited to each 3×5 card in his pile; he sees something for which his pile contains a card with perhaps a pericope / he focuses only on the moment and stuff on the card and the pericope / without any actual larger comprehension of the pericope or its place in the vast Biblical canon and texts.

    Naturally, we are to ignore the resulting incoherences – otherwise we do “mock God”, doncha see?

  39. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 316PM:

    He then tries to mimic Scriptural and scholarly competence by tossing in a few footnote-form bits, including what he imagines is a trumps-all reference to the USCCB.

    But his bit presumes that the Imperial Rome of Revelation is intended to also mean the subsequent “Rome” in which the Vatican is situated. Since that is mere presumption on his part and cannot be definitively derived as such from the text, then this is simply ‘Dan’ playing with his blocks here, constructing away to his own satisfaction but to the larger illumination of no one.

    And as for ‘Dan’s final stab, quoting Luke about the tree/fruit: are we to believe – having sampled deeply ‘Dan’s own “fruit” here for so long and at such length – that we are actually reading “good fruit” from Scriptural comprehension and spiritual enlightenment by God?

    Or are we seeing cartoon rantings from a deeply delusional and queasily repellent personality?

  40. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 316PM:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 610PM where ‘Dan’ will suddenly – had you been waittingggggggg forrrrr itttttttttttt? – shift gears and Wigs.

    In a chummy shout-out to MT ‘Dan’ allows as how he has just “reread [his] last quote” and he wouldn’t at all in any way ever want MT to think that ‘Dan’ was referring to MT as being numbered among “the brood of vipers”. Really?

    Not for a moment. Because – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ was only referring to me (although the Bible says “vipers” plural and “brood” is plural by its very meaning, but in the ‘Dan’-verse approach to Scriptural texts that’s just a thang).

    He doesn’t like his stuff being ‘disputed’ as soon as it’s posted. As Harry Truman said: If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

    • Dan says:

      " 'Dan' was [not] only referring to [you]". Your cult of snakes would qualify as a brood of vipers, although I picture you as the Medusa of your deceiving cult.

    • Dan says:

      I think I've handled the heat, it's your ignorant lies, Biblical misinterpretations and nonsensical falsehoods that are hard to bear. The posts that I skipped today were those not worth wasting my time. Much of your usual stupidity and ignorance.  servant

  41. Dan says:

    Yes, and if they're not bowing to to there false gods and goddesses, popes or pastors, then they're bowing and idolizing the almighty dollar. Either way it's idolatry that I prefer to have no part in. So you can make your claims as to my mental state, but at least I'm not dumb enough to go against the Creator and bow to idols of any kind. This is why I refuse to belong to any religion, let alone those plagued with lying hypocrites. Enjoy your popcorn and pagan flavored Kool-Aid. Don't forget to end your ignorance and stupidity with more mocking.

  42. Dan says:

    Should be "to their" for the grammar police.

  43. Mark Taylor says:

    I had quite a lot to say to Dan but Publion for the most part has saved me the trouble, and I do not believe Publion is defending child abusers at all. Nor did I say that it was a bad thing that Publion goes on a bit, I was just stating a fact. Dan is right about one thing; I did misspell "despicable" but he made a typo of his own. The fact that he would accuss me of defending pedophiles makes him just as bad as the Catholic Church so I might as well remain Catholic in spite of the shortcomings of my Church. Enough said.

  44. Dan says:

    Mark, I never accused you of "defending pedophiles".

    "Dan's 'drivel' but publiar's 'good responses'[?]. So now you're defending liars and pedophile and pervert excusers, just as long as they're you're wonderful catholic cohorts."

    I believe this is the statement you're referring to. I was accusing you of defending publiar. It is he who defends, lies and makes excuses for pedophile and perverts of the church. The fact that you "do not believe [publyin'] is defending child abusers at all", is of course your own opinion, but I believe a bad one.

    In regards to my correcting you or any others, well I don't agree with doing that. I was only giving you an example of what the snobby, self-righteous, lying creep does to demean an opponent. As I've said, he parades himself as being the all knowledgeable one, even under the impression that he's correct in his interpretations of Holy Scripture, and yet isn't smart enough to know not to mock the things of God, including His Word, Holy Spirit or his chosen. He can deny he does any such thing, but his insistent ignorant and stupid mocking is a witness against him. All his garbage is plagued with excuses and lies. You remaining "Catholic in spite of the shortcomings" is your choice. I prefer to follow God and His Son, whose teachings have no shortcomings.

  45. Publion says:

    I had – and not for the first time here – asked ‘Dan’ directly (the 10th at 906AM) “just precisely when the early Christian community … morphed into “the church”.

    And what do we get in response?

    On the 10th at 158PM ‘Dan’ evades it by merely repeating his bit to the effect that “the Christian community has been and will forever be the Christian community separate from ‘the church’”.

    Now there can only be two routes that might be taken from this point of his: either a) the early Christian community morphed into the Catholic Church at some point in history or else b) somehow there was from the beginning both i) an early Christian community and ii) an early Catholic community.

    Which one is it going to be?

  46. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 158PM:

    But instead, ‘Dan’ tries to keep his game going by quickly shifting attention from the at-bat to one of the bases: he merely indulges in more of his epithetical bits from his 3×5 plop-pile.

    Thus he will only accept as a ground-point or starting point that Christianity “has been and will forever be separate” (i.e. from Catholicism). He doesn’t establish how he reaches this world-historical assertion; he simply presumes it.

    But that’s because he slyly evades this fundamental problem-question, waving it away with a blithely myah-myah “I’m not interested and couldn’t care less” one way or the other. In other words: he’s quite happy with his cartoons, thank you, and doesn’t need to explain them any more than the original cartoonist has to explain how Wile E. Coyote never gets killed no matter what is done to him in the old Road-Runner cartoons.

    He is quite as happy with his cartoons as he is, of course, with his delusions.

    However, if you then treat his stuff as the cartoonish spew it actually is, then God’ll-getcha.

    • Dan says:

      What bigger Cartoon Time than catholic deceivers who are under the mistaken impression that they are forgiven Christians. What a joke! Continuously nasty, sexually immoral pedophiles and perverted hypocrites and their excusers, who can't even follow the Lord's Word, having the nerve to think they are the forgiven of the Lord. Utter gnorance and stupidity. And that's without their stupid mocking as frosting on their upside down cake.  servant

  47. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 158PM:

    But we also see his game revealed here in his reference to “man-made religion and all their false gospels” (as opposed to the Church’s formulation of the canon of the New Testament, apparently): ‘Dan’ won’t even be trying to get involved in any religion because it is “manmade”; instead, he creates a ‘Dan’-made religion in which he is both faux-pope and sole parishioner.

    And yet he claims that “your cults” are the ones that “go by their own rules and have little clue of what the Lord asks of His true followers”. Talk about the marvels of clinical projection.

    And since ‘Dan’ as (faux) pope has declared himself to be a “true” Christian, might he then want to join with other “true” Christians? Nah – he’s happy in his own sandbox where, secure in the revelations of his bathroom mirror, he can reign supreme and play with his delusions to his heart’s content. You can play too, if you buy into all his whackery and frakkery. But bring your own shovel.

  48. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 218PM:

    Here he tries to somehow navigate around the fact that the Church is responsible for the content of the New Testament as we know it (and as ‘Dan’ and the fundies rely on it as God’s literalist word).

    He tries to run some sort of ‘minimalizing’ gambit, i.e. the Church only “organized” the canon of the New Testament.

    But that’s so insufficient a characterization as to be not only misleading but deceitful (presuming the proponent knew anything about the history of the Bible and the New Testament to begin with).

  49. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 218PM:

    Because the Church didn’t simply come along and ‘find’ the already-determined twenty-seven Books/Letters of the New Testament lying on the ground, nor did the Church ‘receive’ them as Moses is pictured to have received the Tablets; such that the Church merely had to decide and thus ‘organize’ the table of contents, and which Book would come first, second and so on.

    There were dozens if not hundreds of texts and collections of texts extant in the earliest centuries of Christianity and there were even texts accepted by some Christian authorities in some locales but not so accepted and revered by other Christian authorities and communities.

    And those texts did not all coincide or even provide a coherent corpus of thought: some texts were anti-material and hyper-idealist; some were Gnostic in one way or another; some imagined the Child Jesus as some sort of baby magician; the list can go on.

  50. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 218PM:

    It was the Church that had to wade into this teeming pool of texts and determine which of them were to be included in the canon.

    And it was Pope Damasus I who authorized the Latin Vulgate by Jerome in 383, although even that edition relied upon an older compilation.

    So to assert that the Church merely “organized” the canon is ludicrously insufficient as a matter of historical fact.

    But – of course – ‘Dan’ isn’t going to let any such historical factuality get in the way of his oh-so-necessary cartoon assertions.

    • Dan says:

      So you're going to claim Dan's running some " 'minimalizing' gambit", i.e. " 'the Church' only organized the canon of the New Testament". No, I'm claiming the jerks, I mean 'the Church', only organized all of the Bible. They wrote NOTHING and PROPHESIED no part of it. They assembled and brought the pieces together. Well Whoop Dee Doo. You gave your longwinded 3 comment explanation to explain exactly what I claimed. Thank You again, Mr. Know-It-All. And tell me why you insist on calling your pagan false religion, "the 'Church' ". Did you forget to leave out the 'Church' of hypocritical liars and pagan idolators?    servant