SNAP R.I.P.: After Hefty Lawsuit Payout, Leaders Dorris and Casteix Now Abandon Ship

Barbara Dorris : SNAP : Joelle Casteix

Saying "Sayonara" to SNAP: Executive director Barbara Dorris (l) and Regional director Joelle Casteix (r)

How the mighty have fallen. Executive Director Barbara Dorris, Regional Director Joelle Casteix, and other longtime board members have resigned from their leadership positions at the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP, marking yet another significant downfall for the once-influential organization.

Their departures come after word that SNAP has finally settled a high-profile lawsuit that exposed lawyer kickback schemes, a callous exploitation of abuse victims, and SNAP's abiding ideological hatred of the Catholic Church.

News of the settlement and the departures were first reported by Brian Roewe at the sympathetic National Catholic Reporter, who buried the story on a late Friday afternoon.

Is anything left?

After last year's shocking lawsuit surfaced, longtime SNAP stalwarts and media blowhards David Clohessy and Barbara Blaine (SNAP's founder) abruptly resigned. The lawsuit – filed by SNAP's own former fundraising director Gretchen Hammond – may have been the straw the broke the camel's back. Also around the same time, a falsely accused priest in Michigan sued SNAP for defamation.

Indeed, the period leading up to all of the resignations is replete with examples of SNAP's rogue behavior and reckless actions in their campaign of hatred against the Catholic Church:

  • In August 2016, a federal judge ruled that SNAP maliciously defamed priest Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang and ordered that SNAP "pay the reasonable expenses, including plaintiff's attorney's fees" for defaming him.
  • In 2014, after years of attacking the Church for alleged "inaction" on abuse cases, it was revealed that SNAP did not call police or alert Church officials even though it knew "for several weeks" about a shocking sex abuse allegation against a Chicago priest. Instead, it held a circus-like press conference.
  • SNAP published the email addresses and personal phone numbers of accused priests to incite harassment against them.
  • In 2013, we exclusively reported that SNAP founder Barbara Blaine admitted that she not only wrote a letter on behalf of a doctor arrested with kiddie porn and but also outlined a plan to cover it up.
  • SNAP sued for the right to harass and intimidate parishioners at Sunday Mass.
  • In 2012, we revealed that the vast majority of SNAP's funding comes from kickbacks from Church-suing tort lawyers.
  • In 2012, we exclusively reported that SNAP's Clohessy admitted under oath in a deposition that SNAP had released false information to the press.
  • In 2012, Clohessy actually accused Philadelphia's Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of faking his cancer to avoid appearing at a deposition. However, within 36 hours of Clohessy's callous remark, Bevilacqua passed away.

Indeed, SNAP's intense animus against the Catholic Church cannot be overstated. As SNAP continues its rapid decline into oblivion, some measure of justice will have been served for the many priests and other innocent victims of its reckless and malicious campaign of defamation and hatred.

[See also: ** Special Report** Facts About SNAP That Will Shock You]


  1. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 132AM:

    Oh, and borrowing the misspelled term from ‘Mary’s recent comment, ‘Dan’ also claims for himself the Victim mantle; he’s “bonafied”, doncha know?

    And he tries to wrap it all up with a proposal that might make sense among feuding neighbors over a backyard fence but is ludicrous in the internet setting: you stay out of my business and I’ll stay out of yours, he doth propose.

    What a loss to the treasury of human thought – and to stand-up comedy – that would be.

  2. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:

    And – again in best fundie and 3×5 fashion – ‘Dan’ then tosses up another pericope. But while Paul in 1 Corinthians is using the well-known “rock” imagery to establish the fact that Christ is the ground (or Ground) of the Church, Jesus in the Great Commission pericope is precisely referring to Peter as the Rock upon whom Christ would build His church – in addition to which, again, Christ then adds that unique and stupendous authority to “bind and loose sins”.

    All ‘Dan’ has – as ditto the fundies – is that he (and they) don’t want to see how one could get i) from Peter and Christ that day when Christ pronounced  Peter’s Great Commission to ii) the Catholic Church as it developed in subsequent eras of human (and Providential) history.

    And he tries to head for the wings by – yet and yet again – putting hand to forehead and declaring that he be “somewhat burned out” by having to be “defending” himself and – had you been waittinggg forrr itttt? – “debating Biblical Truths with the deaf, dumb and blind”. The poor victimized thing is “burned out” – doncha see? – like the only ambulance crew at a mass casualty incident.

    Except he doesn’t ‘debate’ – he simply regurgitates over and over again his 3×5 bits. As to who is “deaf, dumb and blind” … readers are welcome to consider and judge as they may.

    • Dan says:

      And you have "regurgitate[d]" your ignorant "Peter's Great Commission" meant he was your 1st catholic pope, when I've insisted that that is an impossibility because humbled and fallible Peter of the Word could never be one of your pompous, triple crowned, dress wearing, idolatrous popes. However maybe Cardinal Dolan could change outfits with Rhianna at the Met, because he's already got the pompous big-mouthed qualities of a catholic pope down. He fit in perfectly with all the filth of Hollywood and boasted about the wonderful time he had. Maybe your church of pervs can move their Vatican down to Hollywood and San Francisco wouldn't be a bad choice for some Catholic NAMBLA Sodomite parades. I mean they've already named their city after Rome's City of Seven Hills. Babylon of the West.

    • Dan says:

      I would answer to more of your ignorance and stupidity tonite, but I'll have to ask Jim if it's OK. I'm sorry Jim that you feel that you're the only qualified victim who can defend himself from the continuous lies, slander, mocking and excuses from "the Church" of Publiars. I don't think that is fair at all.

  3. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1055AM:

    Here JR will try the familiar stream-of-consciousness style.

    As usual, the unifying theme is JR’s theme of self-exculpation. “What am I guilty of?” bleateth he in the accents of a sorely-bethumped Goody Two-Shoes.

    That he has taken upon himself to pronounce that ‘Dan’ “doesn’t belong here”?

    That he doth “promise to murder” somebody who either is or isn’t a human being (again with this bit)?

    Alas – bleatheth he further – he is supposed to be a “monster” for little itty-bitty thingies like that.

    But then – shifting gears (and Wigs) with thoughtless abandon – he manfully (but, of course, not monster-fully) doth declaim that he doth “excuse [himself] from nothing” … which has been his game for a very very long time.

    His animadversion on “trolls” appears to JR only in the projectile and not in the recoil. Who could see JR as a troll by any stretch of the imagination? Who indeed?

  4. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1055AM:

    Then he buckles down to another familiar gambit: he works up some insinuation as to why ‘Dan’ (in today’s episode) is “loathing” him. JR is just a poor truthy heroic thing sorely bethumped by “loathing” – doncha see? He always is and always has been – and he simply ‘cawn’t think why’ (one recalls the Gilbert and Sullivan piece built around that same bleat).

    And then – shifting gears and Wigs yet again – JR proffers his styling of Andrew Jackson u proposes to me ‘let’s have a duel’. Well, JR, we have been having a duel for years here – and your aim seems rather off, does it not?

    Isn’t this the core JR? If you don’t agree with him then he’s gonna getcha you betcha, and as violently as he can manage it. it’s what he does.

  5. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1055AM:

    And then he charges me with having “slaughtered the English idiom” – have I indeed?

    And – marvelously – this equates in his mind to a justification for murder (it’s ‘slaughter’, doncha see?).

    And he heads for the wings with his age-old bit against me (and now extended to ‘Dan’) about being “hired hands”. Into such un-truthy bits he retreats for consolation. Good for JR.

    My best wishes to ‘Malcolm’ and ‘Ken W’ for making (at least for the purposes of today’s performance) JR’s “just other people” list. Though I wouldn’t put too much reliance on the security of that status.

  6. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 119PM:

    One will have to do a bit of hunting on the liberal-leaning CruxNow site for the article, but the key document is a list put up by the Diocese of Erie, PA.

    This is the link to that document:

    As always, it is worthwhile to note that one rarely if ever sees such lists put forward by other organizations. Nor – human sinfulness being what it is – am I surprised that there may well be some (one might even say ‘must be some’) genuine cases.

    But I would make the following observations taken from the text of the site linked-to above:

    The list of 34 persons includes both priests and laypersons; 20 of them are already dead; the list includes females as well as males.

    The still-living priests had been removed from ministry and the lay-persons from Diocesan employ; the site is actually – among other things – intended to warn prospective employers.

    • Dan says:

      Let's not try to change the facts there publiar. There were 34 credible accusations against priests and another 17 accusations against lay persons. Always along with your excuses and denials. must you attempt to minmize the number of creeps in your catholic cult.

  7. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 119PM:

    The Diocese states that only “some” of the accused were actually accused of direct sexual abuse.

    The Diocese further states that the allegations have been found to be “credible in the Diocese’s judgment” – and regular readers here may recall the definition-of-‘credible’ problem that has figured largely in this type of case for decades now.

    The Diocese further states that some of its findings were made merely “out of an abundance of caution rather than because of specific abuse that was perpetrated”.

    More significantly, he Diocese further states that many of the cases “cannot be investigated fully” and “can neither be proved or disproved”.

    And – the most significant conceptual element, I would say – is that the actual definition of “abuse” underlying this list has been expanded to include “sexual, physical, emotional and neglectful”.  So we are – as so often in this type of case – left with no connection between a specific individual and the particular type of ‘abuse’ of which s/he  – in the judgment of the Diocese – was found to be “credibly accused”.

  8. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 119PM:

    The earliest noted death of a priest on the list was 1970 and at least one of the priests was accused after his death.

    Of the 34 priests 3 are currently “under active investigation by law enforcement”; of these one has apparently been so long departed from the ministry that his current address is no longer in the files.

    Thus readers are strongly invited to consider the document and formulate their assessments.

    I would point out that ‘Dan’s effort here to somehow present this as the conclusive fulfillment of all his usual scare-visions is hardly valid.

    • Dan says:

      And as usual, we can always count on the publiar to minimize, define terms to his corrupt liking (i.e. credible), and defend the malfeasants of his false religion. Whether catholic priests or catholic lay people, we can always depend on his many excuses and denials, telling us the facts aren't really truly facts. And in his twisted thinking he can always insinuate that dead priests are no longer guilty priests. Thank Heavens that God made a Hell, so they have a place to go directly when they die. I wouldn't want to see them without a warm cozy home. How's that for a 'valid' "scare-vision", publiar, maybe they'll be able to prepare you a room downstairs?

  9. Mary says:

    Funny! Perhaps Shakespeare can perform next. Lol I gotta have some humor! It is a survival mechanism. Cheers!

  10. Publion says:

    I left out a few and I’ll deal with them now. I’ll go down the list as they appear on the site.

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:

    Apparently having decided that his opening-with-epithet is too much of a giveaway, ‘Dan’ here tries a Wig, the Wig of Sober and Knowledgeable Competence. Thus he hums that he “was unaware of the theological controversies associated with the phrase “Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church”. Quite nicely put, in terms of style and diction and the pericope is even accurately quoted.

    In terms of content … let’s see about that. Let’s see how ‘Dan’ runs with it.

    He doesn’t – actually. Instantly, he merely repeats his bit about all the “Rock verses in the Bible” – which, as I pointed out in a recent comment on this thread, are not relevant to the Great Commission pericope, when they are applicable at all.

    The “theological controversies” we have recently dealt with here on this site aren’t actually very widespread in the general Scripture world at all. Rather, they are the result of ‘Dan’s own whacky efforts to put over the idea that Jesus was referring to Himself when he said “and upon this rock”.

  11. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:

    Well then, perhaps he will get around to addressing the “theological controversies” now.

    Nope. He quickly moves on to something else, about his being “never taught by the fundies”. Note the sly and deceptive switcheroo here: I never said he was “taught” by fundies; I said he lifted most of this stuff from them.

    And – in another nice little demonstration of how all he’s got is his pile of 3x5s, which – when challenged – he can only repeat: he once again tries to run the old “out of context” bit. But as I said in prior comments, the “context” is precisely that of Jesus telling the Disciples of Peter’s special status and thus it is ‘Dan’ who is trying to wrench the pericope out of its context, for his own purposes and agenda.

    Thus – again – while Jesus is surely the Ultimate or Prime “Rock” upon which His church will be founded, yet what we have in the Great Commission is Jesus (and it can hardly be unknowingly) deliberately and formally and clearly i) declaring Peter to be a (subordinate, if you will) “rock” upon whom the church will be built for its journey through human (and Providential) history and then – even more stunningly – ii) assigning to Peter the power to “bind and loose sins” … which is a power never before conceived as anything but divine and never ever before assigned to a human being by the Divine.

  12. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:

    And there’s a method to the madness here: ‘Dan’ thus tries to run this slyly deceptive bleat: it’s all a matter of ‘disagreement’ – doncha see? – so we’ll just have to ‘agree to disagree’ (as they used to say in the ‘70s). As if ‘Dan’s bit were sufficiently coherent and credible and faithful to the text so as to enjoy the status of a valid interpretive possibility.

    But then he turns and steps on his own proposal by instantly tossing out that he will agree to disagree … but even so any interpretation here but his is “your catholic misinterpretation” and thus “totally ignorant”.

    Whereas JR is an adept at the Victim-Wig, ‘Dan’ is an adept of the Mature-Scriptural-Competence Wig … although, as we have often seen, neither maturity nor Scriptural competence are demonstrably emplaced in his repertoire. Wigs and poses and the repetition of the usual bits, larded with epithet – that’s about all there is to these performances.

    • Dan says:

      Once again in a poor attempt to twist and manipulate statements I've made, just as he has manipulated Biblical verse to his liking, publiar oinks, "he will 'agree to disagree' ". I will never agree with a blatant liar, whether catholic liar or any other liars.

  13. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:

    And he tries to ground that whackness with the further bit that all he – the poor but mature and Scripturally-competent thing – can do is “go by what is Biblical” (which is a code word for what is ‘Dan’s preferred and necessary view of any pericope). As I have said, while a) the texts he quotes can be characterized as “Biblical” yet b) what he tries to do with them cannot withstand any level of actual Biblical analysis at all.

    We will be here for a very long while if we try to compile a list of what ‘Dan’ doth “fail to see” (nice mimicry of scholarly diction, though).

  14. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:

    And then and then he tries to dispose of that ever-pesky “bind and loose sins” element in the Great Commission pericope.

    He simply cawn’t “see” how Jesus giving Peter that (stupendous and unique and – not to put too fine a point on it – previously-considered-divine) power can ground any sense of the uniqueness of the authority contained in Peter’s Great Commission. Of course, ‘Dan’ tries to evade that core and profound theological point by simply tossing up a typical fundie cartoon scare-vision of “triple crowned” and so forth. Wheeeee.

  15. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:

    And he then tries to further bolster that whackery – in a highly familiar fundie way – by merely retreating to another pericope (about ‘call no one father’ – previously discussed on this thread). But we have already seen the problems with that pericope on this thread – and ‘Dan’ has evaded any actual substantive response to those problems.

    And let us dispose of another bit of mimicry: ‘Dan’ doth not “dispute” in any scholarly or intellectually competent sense. Rather, he merely bleats and bawls No-No-No while tossing up this or that pericope that never does manage to introduce any grounds for his “dispute” but rather simply – not to be too repetitive – yields another No-No-No (perhaps with decisive and conclusive stamping of the feet loudly).

  16. Publion says:

    And we have commenter ‘Mary’ back on the 10th at 829PM where  – in case the possibility hadn’t already occurred to readers – she’s really just into the sort of ‘drive-by’ commenting that one sees in the lower precincts of the internet.

    But she’s reeely reeeely stressed out – doncha see? – and life has victimized her to the point where she needs a “survival mechanism” and thus such a level of commenting is justified … doncha see? We have seen this type of self-justification before here.

    And if you don’t see that, she’ll just toss that snarky “Cheers!” into your face and keep on keeping on. She’s just here for ‘Mary’ and nothing else. If you’re not into her personal soap-opera you can change the channel.