Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

SNAP Unmasked

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1901-1920 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2012 5:04:39 AM PST
Kevin -

Have you seen this?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 9, 2012 2:20:25 AM PST
Kevin Bold says:
Let's see Alex and her "String-'em-up-and-ask-questions-later" friends stay in denial about what we Catholics have known all along now ...

Posted on Mar 9, 2012 5:37:00 AM PST
Hmm -

I think this link should work as well:

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 9, 2012 5:43:54 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 9, 2012 1:40:39 PM PST

That feet of clay stink =P

Posted on Mar 16, 2012 8:38:57 AM PDT
Kevin Bold says:

Bill Donohue
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

At the end of 2011, a Missouri judge ordered David Clohessy, the president of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), to be deposed regarding his role in cases of priestly sexual abuse. Clohessy fought the order vigorously, but lost. On January 2, 2012, he was deposed; the deposition was made public only recently [NOTE: all pages cited are taken from the deposition. (For the deposition, go to -- KB) ].

Clohessy proved to be uncooperative, refusing to comply with a request for internal documents; he only released a small portion of them. On the stand, he was similarly recalcitrant, refusing to answer many questions. He took refuge in a Missouri law which protects the confidentiality of rape crisis centers. But there are serious reasons to doubt whether SNAP meets the test of a rape crisis center.

Clohessy was asked point blank, "Did you identify yourself as a rape crisis center?" His reply, "I don't know." [p. 87.] At another point, he admitted, "I don't know under the Missouri statutes exactly what constitutes a rape crisis center." [p. 112.] The lawyers for an accused priest were not impressed. From their questions, and from subsequent statements they've made, it is clear that they do not believe that SNAP qualifies as a rape crisis center. They have plenty of reasons for reaching this conclusion.

When asked what training he has as a rape crisis counselor, Clohessy said, "You know, I've done-I've provided support to victims of sexual assault for 20-roughly 23 or 24 years. I do not have a-no." He was then asked, "Do you have any formal education or training with regard to rape crisis counseling?" He answered, "I do not." [p. 19].

Clohessy has a bachelor's degree in philosophy and political science. He is not a licensed counselor, yet counseling alleged victims of sexual abuse is what he does for a living. When asked, "Did you have any classes at all in counseling sexual abuse victims?", he answered, "Any formal classes?" The attorney affirmed his question, answering, "Yes." To which Clohessy replied, "No, sir." [p. 191.]

The defense attorneys wanted to know if anyone at SNAP is licensed to counsel abuse victims. Clohessy was asked, "Does SNAP have any licensed counselors in the State of Missouri?" He said, "We are a-as I said at the beginning, we're a self-help group. We are not-we don't hold ourselves out to be formal licensed counselors." [pp. 19-20.]

Clohessy then maintained that SNAP has support groups that "meet on a regular basis and offer support and comfort and consolation and guidance" to alleged victims. The lawyers picked up on this by asking, "Are there any licensed social workers or counselors on the staff at any of those meetings in the state of Missouri?" Clohessy was able to mention the founder of SNAP, Barbara Blaine, who is "a licensed-as I said, she has a Master's degree in social work." The attorneys were curious. "Is Barbara Blaine licensed as a counselor or social worker in the State of Missouri or the State of Illinois?" Clohessy answered, "I don't know." [p. 20.]

(There is a difference between someone who holds a Master's in Social Work and someone with a Master's in Counseling. It is expected that if someone wants to practice independently, he obtains licensure. Typically, this means at least two years of clinical work in a supervised setting. No one at SNAP is a licensed counselor.)

The attorneys for the defense sought to find out where the counseling takes place. Clohessy said, "We meet people wherever they want to meet, in Starbucks, at, you know-wherever people feel comfortable, that's where we meet." [p. 22.] When they meet at Starbucks for their "counseling" sessions, they mostly just talk. "You know, the overwhelming bulk of our work is talking to, listening to, supporting sex abuse victims," he admitted. [p. 23.]

Of interest to the defense attorneys was the amount of money SNAP spends on "counseling." "How much annually does SNAP spend for individuals in individual therapy sessions?" Clohessy offered a straight-forward answer: "I have no idea." [p. 26]. He then dug himself in deeper. He was asked how much money has been paid "to an individual counselor for an individual victim." Explicitly, "out of that $3 million that's in the tax return," how much was spent on individual counselors? Clohessy confessed, "Don't know." [p. 30.] Regarding the $3 million in SNAP's bank account, he was asked, "Where is that money kept?" He wasn't sure. "I'm assuming it's in Chicago." [p. 29.]

Clohessy explained what he does for a living. He says SNAP has a business address in Chicago, but that he doesn't know the zip code. Having no office-he works out of his home in the St. Louis area-he fields phone calls. [p. 9.] "Individuals call me and they share their pain with me." So what does he do about it? "I console them and I may be on the phone with them for an hour." He said he doesn't charge them a fee for his consolation over the phone. [p. 26].

Declaring one's home to be a place of business raises legal questions. Clohessy was asked whether "at your house do you have an occupational license or a business license to do business out of your house." He simply said, "No." [p. 98.]

Clohessy refused to disclose his source of funding. When asked, "You won't tell us the sources of your funding; isn't that correct?", he said, "That's correct." [p. 85.] Now it is well known that Church-suing lawyers have generously given to SNAP over the years [see my 2011 report, SNAP EXPOSED: Unmasking the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests; it is available at].

When asked specifically about monies SNAP receives from lawyers, once again Clohessy refused to answer. What really set him off was the question, "Does SNAP have any agreements with attorneys regarding referral of victims to those attorneys?" Clohessy snapped, "Can I say I'm offended at the question?" [p. 32.]

Given the type of work SNAP does, it is mandated by law to give a portion of its funds to charity. "As a director of SNAP," Clohessy was asked, "do you understand that SNAP is required by federal law to contribute so much of their assets every year for charitable purposes." His reply, "I'm not aware of that." [p. 82.]

So what does SNAP do with its money? In 2007, it spent a total of $593 for "survivor support." [pp. 102-03.] The following year it spent $92,000 on travel. [p. 107.]

SNAP says it pursues priests who are "credibly accused." It may interest bishops and priests what Clohessy means by this. "How would you define the word `credibly accused?'" (This is important because many accused priests have been railroaded by those who have made false claims.) Clohessy replied, "You know, there's all kinds of criteria." All kinds of criteria? He continued by saying sometimes there are multiple accusers, but at no time did he say what the criteria were. [p. 110.]

Anyone who has followed SNAP is aware how often it holds a press conference condemning a diocese before a lawsuit is filed. By working with its attorneys, and some reporters, SNAP is able to get on the evening news making the diocese look bad (lawyers for the diocese are usually the last ones to receive the lawsuits). So it was not surprising that the defense lawyers would ask Clohessy about this tactic.

For example, in one case, where a lawsuit had a file stamp of October 20, 2011, the time was recorded as 2:44 p.m. When asked how SNAP could have had this information before it was filed in court, Clohessy refused to answer. [pp. 52-53.] In another case, a lawsuit had a file stamp of November 8, 2011 at 1:28 p.m., yet Clohessy was able to post information about this before it was filed with the court. When asked to explain himself, he refused. [pp. 62-63.]

Apparently, Clohessy knows next to nothing about his staff. When asked about his staff, he mentioned the founder, Barbara Blaine. He also said, "We have an administrative person who is new," but he could only remember the person's first name. He admitted that they also had a fundraising person but "I apologize, I don't know the spelling of her last name." [pp. 13-14.] Later, he was asked, "Who is in charge of SNAP's website? Is there a specific company or is it done in-house?" Clohessy was blunt: "I don't know." [pp.165-66.]

Finally, Clohessy admitted that he has lied about some of his statements to the press. "Has SNAP to your knowledge ever issued a press release that contained false information?" He didn't blink: "Sure." [p. 39.] Did he lie about priests he knew to be innocent, or at least thought may have been innocent? We don't know.

So is David Clohessy a sincere man driven by the pursuit of justice? Or is he a con artist driven by revenge? It may very well be that the former description aptly explains how he started, while the latter describes what he has become.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2012 11:45:49 AM PDT
Thanks for the continued updates and link, Kevin.

Posted on Mar 21, 2012 2:33:04 PM PDT
Kevin Bold says:
Alexandria R says: "So, let me put it to you another way. If SNAP were to be disbanded what would you propose to put in its place?"

Nothing. What good is an organization that does nothing but sue the Catholic Church solely to keep its lawyer members flush?

Posted on May 5, 2012 3:05:01 PM PDT

In reply to an earlier post on May 5, 2012 3:23:03 PM PDT
Kevin Bold says:
Excellent... more bad news for SNAP...

In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 9:54:15 AM PDT

Posted on Apr 5, 2014 10:24:53 AM PDT
Kevin Bold says:
For the latest on the Philadelphia case (big developments!)

Posted on Apr 5, 2014 12:42:48 PM PDT
Kevin Bold says:
From another thread -- Thanks, Reesey!

"If you haven't been following Cipriano's blog, spend time reading it now. Cipriano was very PRO prosecution when he began his blog. But it wasn't long before he began to see what a kangaroo court it really was - and his whole attitude changed. He is still pro-prosecution of REAL perps - including even those bishops who failed to act to protect children.

"But when prosecutors act illegally themselves, and think they are above the law, they make matters worse, not better."

"The Day 56 Bags of Heroin Disappeared"

By Ralph Cipriano



"Mom's Calendars Undermine Billy Doe's Story"


MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2013

D.A. Rolled Out Red Carpet For Billy Doe



Billy Doe's Lucky Streak Continues


FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 2013

"A Tragic Miscarriage Of Justice"



D.A.'s Grand Jury Report Riddled With Errors



The Split In The D.A.'s Office Over Billy Doe's [Lack Of] Credibility



Billy Doe's Junkie Hustle


Posted on Apr 6, 2014 6:47:15 AM PDT
Kevin Bold says:
Please go to for another view of the miscarriage of justice in Philadelphia.

Posted on Apr 6, 2014 7:42:06 AM PDT
Kevin Bold says:
To whom it may concern: Voting against my posts will not change the fact that four men in Philadelphia were falsely accused and wrongly convicted of child abuse and conspiring to endanger children. They deserve apologies, not derision, especially from the people who believed the charges simply because the accused were Catholics.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2014 9:52:11 AM PDT
mrs exp says:
Kevin Bold,
We don't have to prove it wrong. There is to much evidence in to many countries for there not to be something wrong, really wrong. And it is covered up at the highest offices of the church and dismissed by people like you.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2014 11:01:45 AM PDT
Thanks to you both, Reesey and Kevin.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2014 11:41:11 AM PDT
Celsus says:
According to the Irish Times, Ireland's leading newspaper: "The sheer scale and longevity of the torment inflected on defenceless children - over 800 known abusers in over 200 Catholic institutions during a period of 35 years - should alone make it clear that it was not accidental or opportunistic but systematic. Abuse was not a failure of the system. It was the system."

Everyone knows that the identified cases are only the tip of a vile iceberg. As the official enquiries have established (Ferns Report 2005, Irish Child Abuse Commission 2009) the Catholic Church systematically covered up the child abuse- they moved paedophile priests from one diocese to the next, enabling them to continue abusing and raping children on a massive scale. The Commission's report said testimony had demonstrated beyond a doubt that the entire system treated children more like prison inmates and slaves than people with legal rights and human potential, that some Catholic officials encouraged ritual beatings and consistently shielded their orders amid a "culture of self-serving secrecy".

Among the more extreme allegations of abuse were beatings and rapes, subjection to naked beatings in public, being forced into oral sex and even subjection to beatings after failed rape attempts by brothers. The abuse has been described by some as Ireland's Holocaust. The abuse was said to be "endemic" in the institutions that dealt with boys. The UK based Guardian newspaper, described the abuse as "the stuff of nightmares", citing the adjectives used in the report as being particularly chilling: "systemic, pervasive, chronic, excessive, arbitrary, endemic".

After years of denials and evasions, after the facts have finally been established in a way that could no longer be denied or evaded, the Irish bishops finally acknowledged in a statement that there was "a culture that was prevalent in the Catholic Church in Ireland for far too long. Heinous crimes were perpetrated against the most innocent and vulnerable, and vile acts with life-lasting effects were carried out under the guise of the mission of Jesus Christ. This abuse represents a serious betrayal of the trust which was placed in the church."

So, after years of cover-ups, the scumbags finally made this statement when it could simply no longer be avoided. The last two facts implicate at least 1,300 priests in pedophile acts, and these are limited to relatively small geographical regions, and represent only the tip of the iceberg. For example, check out the following article detailing the multitude of rapes and abortions committed by Catholic priests throughout 23 countries in recent years. The article is headed:

"Vatican confirms report of sexual abuse and rape of nuns by priests in 23 countries"

Here are some excerpts:

"Confidential Vatican reports obtained by the National Catholic Reporter, a weekly magazine in the US, have revealed that members of the Catholic clergy have been exploiting their financial and spiritual authority to gain sexual favours from nuns, particularly those from the Third World who are more likely to be culturally conditioned to be subservient to men.

The reports, some of which are recent and some of which have been in circulation for at least seven years, said that such priests had demanded sex in exchange for favours, such as certification to work in a given diocese.

In extreme instances, the priests had made nuns pregnant and then encouraged them to have abortions.

The US article was based on five documents, which senior women from religious orders and priests have presented to the Vatican over the past decade. They describe a particularly bad situation in Africa. In a continent devastated by Aids, nuns, along with early adolescent girls, are perceived by some as safe sexual targets. The reports said that the church authorities had done little to tackle the problem.

The Vatican reports cited countless cases of nuns forced to have sex with priests. Some were obliged to take the pill, others became pregnant and were encouraged to have abortions. In one case in which an African sister was forced to have an abortion, she died during the operation and her aggressor led the funeral mass. Another case involved 29 sisters from the same congregation who all became pregnant to priests in the diocese.

The reports said that the cultures in some African countries made it almost impossible for a young woman to disobey an older man, especially one seen as spiritually superior. There were cases of novices who applied to their local priest or bishop for certificates of good Catholic practice that were required for them to pursue their vocation. In return they were made to have sex. Some incidents of sexual abuse allegedly took place almost within the Vatican walls.

In addition, the largest order in the Roman Catholic Church, the Jesuits, enabled convicted serial child abuser Father Donald McGuire, a confessor to Mother Teresa, to perpetrate his crimes against children:

The Jesuits are also paying out a huge settlement in connection with more than 500 sexual abuse cases in the Northwest:

Vatican crimes revealed

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2014 12:13:42 PM PDT
Kevin Bold says:
What's being covered up?

You can't have a "cover up" if you don't have a crime. In Philadelphia, there was no "crime" apart from an overzealous prosecutor and a lying accuser. And THAT is what Rolling Stone was "covering up."

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2014 12:17:00 PM PDT
Kevin Bold says:
First of all, what happened in Ireland -- IF something happened in Ireland -- doesn't prove the Philadelphia priests were guilty.

Second, now that another group of priests have been falsely accused and convicted, we can start asking for and demanding investigations into possible prosecutorial misconduct.

(Sorry, Celsus, but this isn't the "smoking gun" against Christianity you thought it was or hoped it would be. The Philadelphia priests were INNOCENT.)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2014 12:29:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 6, 2014 12:30:19 PM PDT
Celsus says:

>>First of all, what happened in Ireland -- IF something happened in Ireland......<<

IF something happened in Ireland? Are you serious? Your credibility is on par with Holocaust deniers.
‹ Previous 1 ... 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  53
Total posts:  1920
Initial post:  Aug 29, 2011
Latest post:  Apr 6, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions