Was Mother Teresa a Fraud? Was She Evil? Christopher Hitchens Lied

Christopher Hitchens, the heavy-drinking, Oxford-educated writer known for attacking politicians with his pen, had a vitriolic campaign against the beloved Mother Teresa. But why did he have such a problem with a Nobel Peace Prize winner who devoted much of her life to helping the poor and is a canonized saint of the Catholic Church?

At first glance, pitting Hitchens against Mother Teresa (both deceased) seems like an unfair fight. After all, how could the frail, pious nun who helped the poor with her hands be compared to the sharp-tongued writer who wielded his intellect as a weapon? But Hitchens; imagination saw through the image of an innocent do-gooder that surrounded Mother Teresa and launched a scathing critique of her life and work.

The "Myth of Mother Teresa"

Hitchens insisted that Mother Teresa was anything but the apolitical savior of the poor that she was known to be. Instead, he portrayed her as a willing political tool for the Vatican, a validator of corrupt right-wing political leaders, and even more surprisingly, a suppressor rather than a savior of the poor.

One of Hitchens' main contentions was that Mother Teresa's image was incorrectly adored by the media. He quoted Mark Twain: “Give a man the reputation for being an early riser and that man can sleep until noon.” In other words, he believed that her reputation as an early riser—someone who tirelessly served the poor—was undeserved.

The Political Side of Mother Teresa

During her Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in 1979, Mother Teresa made strong statements against abortion and contraceptives. She declared that abortion was the greatest threat to world peace and campaigned against birth control. Hitchens found this problematic because she worked in India—a country with hundreds of millions of people living in dire poverty. He argued that her family-planning policies were disturbing since they aligned with anti-abortion sentiments while ignoring the pressing needs of impoverished families.

Furthermore, Hitchens hypothesized that Mother Teresa's use of her international fame to advocate for anti-abortion policies was due to her being a political tool for the Vatican. She allegedly urged political leaders worldwide to pass anti-abortion legislation—an issue crucial to the Catholic Church.

Controversial Associations

Mother Teresa's close alignment with controversial political figures also bothered Hitchens. She accepted awards from and praised leaders like Haiti's Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier (accused of killing tens of thousands during his rule) and former U.S. President Ronald Reagan (whose policies contributed to civil wars in Central America).

In summary, Hitchens believed that Mother Teresa's idolization wasn't earned. He criticized her stark opposition to contraception and highlighted the horrid conditions in her hospice. For him, she represented not an angelic figure but rather a complex character entangled in politics and religious dogma.

What are we to make of the claims Hitchens made which many online atheists still posit as factual?  Simply put, Christopher Hitchens was wrong about Mother Teresa. He accused her of being a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud who exploited the poor and promoted a cruel and dogmatic view of Catholicism.  Here he showed his bigotry and hate against Catholics. He just simply did not like religion and his commentaries showed it.  

He also claimed that she accepted money from dictators and criminals, opposed contraception and abortion, and faked her miracles. However, his arguments were based on selective evidence, biased interpretation, and personal animosity.  No one on earth is perfect. We all have friends who have their secrets. 

We have our own secrets as well as our own imperfections. Donors are no different. Just because someone donates to a GoFundMe and may be a Mafia member does not make the GoFundMe campaign part of the Mafia or an endorsement of it. Again, Hitchens was just showing his animosity and bias.  He ignored the testimonies of countless people who witnessed her compassion, humility, and generosity. He also failed to understand her spiritual vision of serving Christ in the poorest of the poor. This is different from the mission and view of a medical doctor who attempts to deal with the medical issues of his or her patient for monetary gain. 

Hitchens made many claims against Mother Teresa including accusing her of running clinics with poor conditions where nurses reused needles on patients and even claimed Mother Teresa sought the best medical care for herself.  Hitchens also claimed Mother Teresa funneled millions to the Vatican. He mentions this in his books Hell's Angel and The Missionary Position. Note the titles of these books. They are satirical hooks to get people to buy the books. "Hell's Angel" is a reference to the biker gang while the "Missionary Position" is a reference to a sexual act implying Mother Teresa was F*%#ing the poor. It is a vulgar sexual innuendo meant to attack Mother Teresa and be comical at the same time.  The four-letter "F" word is sometimes used to indicate when someone is hurting others, taking advantage of them, and so on. 

Mother Teresa did not exploit the Poor

One of the most common charges that Hitchens leveled against Mother Teresa was that she exploited the poor and suffering people who came to her hospices, known as "Homes for the Dying". He claimed that she did not provide them with adequate medical care, pain relief, or hygiene, but rather let them die in agony and filth while telling them that their suffering was a gift from God and a way to salvation.

This accusation is based on a distorted and selective view of Mother Teresa's work and philosophy. First of all, it is important to understand that Mother Teresa's hospices were not hospitals or clinics, but places where people who had no one else to care for them could find shelter, comfort, and dignity in their last moments. They were not meant to cure diseases or prolong life, but to offer love, dignity, and respect to those who were rejected by society and abandoned by their families. As Mother Teresa herself said: "We are not here to solve all the problems of the world but to touch those whom we can with the love of Christ."

Secondly, it is not true that Mother Teresa denied or neglected the medical needs of her patients. She had a team of doctors and nurses who visited her hospices regularly and provided basic medical care, such as antibiotics, bandages, vaccinations, and vitamins. She also referred some of her patients to hospitals or clinics when they needed more advanced treatment or surgery. She did not oppose modern medicine or science but rather used them as tools to serve the poor. She even accepted an honorary degree from Harvard Medical School in 1982, where she praised the achievements of medical science and urged the students to use their skills for the benefit of humanity.

Thirdly, it is not true that Mother Teresa imposed her religious views on her patients or forced them to convert to Catholicism. She respected the faith and culture of each person she served, regardless of their religion or background. She did not baptize anyone without their consent or knowledge, as Hitchens falsely claimed. She only offered spiritual guidance and prayers to those who asked for them or expressed an interest in them. She also encouraged interfaith dialogue and cooperation among different religious groups. She once said: "There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore, it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God."

Mother Teresa did not receive money from Dubious Sources

Another accusation that Hitchens made against Mother Teresa was that she received millions of dollars in donations from corrupt or criminal sources, such as dictators, fraudsters, and arms dealers. He claimed that she accepted money from people like Charles Keating, Robert Maxwell, Jean-Claude Duvalier, and Enver Hoxha, without questioning their motives or morality. He also alleged that she used the money for dubious purposes, such as building convents or supporting anti-abortion campaigns, rather than helping the poor.

This accusation is based on a distorted and selective view of Mother Teresa's finances and activities. First of all, it is important to understand that Mother Teresa did not personally handle or manage the money that was donated to her organization, known as the Missionaries of Charity. She had a team of accountants and auditors who were responsible for keeping track of the funds and ensuring their proper use. She also had a board of trustees who oversaw the financial affairs of the organization and made decisions about its projects and programs.

Secondly, it is not true that Mother Teresa accepted money from anyone without checking their background or ethics. She had a policy of not accepting donations from sources that were involved in activities that contradicted her values or principles, such as violence, oppression, or injustice. She also returned or refused donations that came with strings attached or conditions that interfered with her mission or vision. She once said: "We do not accept money that has blood on it."

Thirdly, it is not true that Mother Teresa used the money for dubious purposes or wasted it on unnecessary expenses. She used the money for various humanitarian and social causes, such as building and running schools, orphanages, leprosy clinics, AIDS centers, soup kitchens, shelters, and hospices around the world. She also supported various campaigns and initiatives that promoted human dignity and rights, such as the abolition of the death penalty, the protection of refugees, and the prevention of child trafficking. She was transparent and accountable about her spending and reporting and submitted annual reports to the Vatican and other authorities. Moreover, there is no way Christopher Hitchens could have known the finances of the Missionaries of Charity. So where did he get his information from?  He made it up!

Mother Teresa was not a Friend of Dictators

Another accusation that Hitchens made against Mother Teresa was that she was a friend of dictators and tyrants and that she praised or supported them in exchange for favors or recognition. He claimed that she endorsed or legitimized regimes that were responsible for atrocities, human rights violations, and oppression, such as those of Albania, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. He also alleged that she ignored or dismissed the suffering and grievances of the people who lived under those regimes and that she betrayed her own principles of peace and justice.

This accusation is based on a distorted and selective view of Mother Teresa's diplomacy and politics. First of all, it is important to understand that Mother Teresa was not a politician or a diplomat, but a humanitarian and a religious leader. She did not have any political agenda or affiliation but rather followed her conscience and her faith. She did not seek or accept any political power or influence but rather used her moral authority and reputation to advocate for the poor and the oppressed.

Secondly, it is not true that Mother Teresa praised or supported dictators or tyrants. She did not endorse or legitimize any regime or ideology but rather challenged them to respect human dignity and rights. She did not ignore or dismiss the suffering and grievances of the people who lived under those regimes, but rather spoke out for them and offered them assistance. She also criticized and condemned violence and injustice wherever she saw them, regardless of who committed them or why. She once said: "We are called upon not to be successful, but to be faithful."

Thirdly, it is not true that Mother Teresa betrayed her own principles of peace and justice. She did not compromise or dilute her values or principles but rather lived them out in her words and actions. She did not avoid or evade conflict or controversy but rather faced them with courage and compassion. She also forgave and reconciled with those who wronged her or opposed her, regardless of their status or position. She once said: "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other."

Conclusion

On September 4, 2016, Mother Teresa was elevated to sainthood when Pope Francis canonized her at the Vatican. The late nun, already called the "Saint of the Gutters," is widely known for her decades spent caring for the poor and sick in Kolkata, India. Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike admire her.

Millions, if not billions, of people around the world have long loved the woman who has become a symbol of service to the least fortunate. World leaders received and honored her, including Ronald Reagan, Indira Gandhi, Princess Diana, and the Dalai Lama. Mother Teresa received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and an honorary doctorate from the University of Cambridge. President Bill Clinton made Mother Teresa an honorary American citizen in 1996, saying she had demonstrated "how we can make real our dreams for a just and good society." She was even given a State Funeral by India, the highest form of salutation to a deceased person in the nation and which is reserved for prominent members of the nation or government. Logic dictates that if Mother Teresa was the evil fraud Hitchens claimed of her, she would not have garnered so much deference, adulation, admiration, and respect. To date, nothing bad has come out of her decades after her death.

Born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu in 1910, in what is now Macedonia, Mother Teresa joined the Loreto order of nuns in 1928. It was on a 1946 train trip through India that she was inspired to leave the Loreto order and found the Missionaries of Charity. The order was established four years later and has since opened more than 130 houses around the world to provide care for the sick and dying. Missionaries of Charity nuns must adhere to traditional vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience, as well as a fourth vow: to give "wholehearted free service to the poorest of the poor." Mother Teresa worked as head of Missionaries of Charity until six months before she died in 1997 at 86.

In conclusion, I have shown that Christopher Hitchens was wrong about Mother Teresa and that his books were a biased and misleading attack on one of the most compassionate and selfless human beings who ever lived. I have examined some of the main accusations that Hitchens made against Mother Teresa, and shown why they are either false, exaggerated, or irrelevant. I have also presented some of the evidence that supports Mother Teresa's legacy as a genuine humanitarian and a faithful servant of God.

It is interesting to note that Christopher Hitchens' books have no index, bibliography, or references. They are just small books, barely 100 pages, and are just his words. He offers no evidence, no primary, secondary, or even tertiary sources. Readers are left to simply take his word for it on his authority. This is ironic coming from the man who developed what atheists online call the "Hitchens' Razor" which is taken from a quote by Hitchens who writes in another book entitled "God IS NOT Great," "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”  

Ironically, he offers no evidence against Mother Teresa in his books, just conjecture and his personal animosity and bias.  On that ground, we can dismiss his books and comments because he asserted them without evidence so therefore, they can be dismissed without evidence.  Ironically, Hitchens was hired to be the devil's advocate in the cause of Mother Teresa.  His job was to show evidence of why should did not live an exemplary holy life. He failed miserably to convince the Vatican.  

And to think that there are so-called atheists online who admire this guy and see him as some intellectual when he was a clumsy polemicist and gossip making a living via bigotry and slandering others.  We can question the intelligence and integrity of these so-called atheists easily based on their choice of idols. 

Mother Teresa was not a fraud, a fanatic, or a friend of dictators. She was a saint, a hero, and a friend of the poor. She died with dignity and holiness. 

Hitchens never lifted a finger to help anyone, just sat in his chair criticizing people who did help.  He promoted division bigotry and misinformation only tolerating those who had his narrow vision and intellect. Despite his writings, he never won the Nobel Peace Prize. He died from his own vices, alone, angry, and miserable.  

His memorial or funeral service was attended by a few people - old pretentious wealthy White men who love to explain things for others- in comparison to Mother Teresa's with his brother ironically reading from the Bible, a reading from Philippians.  Mother Teresa's funeral was attended by millions and by people from all faiths and walks of life. Hitchens claimed to be a Humanist, but evidence and history show Mother Teresa was the true Humanist who focused on humans, especially the poorest of the poor.  St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, pray for us!

What do you think? Post your comment below on Disqus.  Be sure to follow the rules so your comment can go through.  

Here are some references that challenge Hitchens' allegations and defend Mother Teresa's legacy:

*Sources:*

1. [The Atheist Vs. The Saint: Why Christopher Hitchens 'Hated' Mother Teresa](https://www.christianpost.com/news/the-atheist-vs-the-saint-why-christopher

- [Mother Teresa: Beyond the Image](https://www.amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-Beyond-Image-Anniversary/dp/0385491370) by Anne Sebba. This book is a balanced and sympathetic biography of Mother Teresa that explores her motivations, challenges, and achievements.

- [Unmasking Mother Teresa's Critics](https://www.amazon.com/Unmasking-Mother-Teresas-Critics-Bill/dp/1621640407) by Bill Donohue. This book is a rebuttal of Hitchens' book The Missionary Position and other critics of Mother Teresa. It exposes the flaws and fallacies of their arguments and provides factual evidence to support her sanctity.

- [Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light](https://www.amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-Private-Writings-Calcutta/dp/0307589234) by Brian Kolodiejchuk. This book is a collection of Mother Teresa's personal letters that reveal her inner struggles, doubts, and joys. It shows her deep love for God and her desire to follow his will.

- [Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause](https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/mother-teresa-the-case-for-the-cause.html) by Fr. Brian Kolodiejchuk. This article is a summary of the process and evidence for Mother Teresa's beatification and canonization. It addresses some of the common objections and misconceptions about her life and work.

Raid at the Vatican

According to an Italian magazine, there was a massive raid at the Vatican. The offices responsible for finances at the Vatican's Secretariat of State became the scene of a police investigation.

As a result, five employees have been suspended.  Among those suspended is Monsignor Mauro Carlino. Carlino is responsible for documentation.  The other people suspended are 3 men and one woman.  Prosecutors from the Vatican's court system were responsible for ordering the raid. 

During the raid, devices and documents were confiscated by the authorities and will be used for further investigation into fraud. There has been concern over some financial transactions which took place during a period of time not specified. These transactions involved real estate business conducted. 

Pope Francis has made it a priority to investigate and clean up the Vatican's financial branch which has been plagued with corruption and scandal.  There is no word yet if those suspended will face any criminal charges. 



Source:


https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=43624

https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1367

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/1002/1080741-vatican-employees-suspended/

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/after-vatican-raid-5-officials-and-employees-suspended-94890

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatican-raid/vatican-police-raid-top-offices-in-financial-investigation-idUSKBN1WG45E

http://espresso.repubblica.it/inchieste/2019/10/02/news/vaticano-clamoroso-scandalo-milionario-indagine-su-un-monsignore-e-il-capo-dell-aif-1.339417?ref=HEF_RULLO

Atheism = A-Fraud V

Many atheists today believe strongly in free speech and expression. They complain when displays mocking religion are removed from museums or when Muslims protest cartoons of their alleged prophet. When some atheists are arrested and tortured in Arab nations for blogging, atheists will cry out 'foul!' The irony is that they only believe in free speech and expression when it pertains to their silly ideas.  If theists of any faith join their groups online or post on their blogs, atheists who run the aforementioned will do anything possible to censor them.

What are they afraid of if they supposedly have the 'truth?'

I myself have been kicked out of Google + communities and Facebook groups run by pusillanimous atheists who are afraid to debate me directly. At first, they are welcoming but then they become Nazis.  This shows the fraud perpetuated by atheists today.  They believe and promote freedom of speech and expression, but stifle speech and expression that threatens them.

While I understand moderation is necessary to weed out bad comments and personalities, not everything that counter's an atheist view should be viewed as something that needs to be 'weeded out' if a community or group truly celebrates free speech and expression.  When I started my own site, I allowed anyone to post comments.  However, when I noticed spam bots posting comments with virus links and when some trolls came on to post vulgarity and what not, that is when I decided to moderate my site.  I now only allow comments that are relevant to the post and are free from ad hominem and vulgarity. I feel this is fair and keeps the site clean and flowing.  However, atheists only favor their own and censor the speech of others only become it is different. They are not fair or honest.


Let me identify a few examples.

Here is Dan Eastman who moderates the Atheism community on Google +. The rules of this community allow for the posting of links that bring about discussion related to atheism. Atheists post their links without issue.  However, once I posted my links related to atheism, he had issue with it.  When I questioned his unfairness and quoted the community's own rules which allows me to post links related to the community, he removed me from the group.   Clearly he is biased and is not interested in honest discourse, only what conforms to his limited scope of thinking.  See the group and the rules below.
https://plus.google.com/communities/111179822253566656576
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IIAQASblupMS0y54FeWGlf3qIdCxIzGv_5who6yvFOc/edit

Here we have Alan Lee on the left and M. Walter Saranetz  in black and white below Alan.  Alan is the owner of a Facebook group on Deism, Atheism and Theism. He has M. Walter Saranetz and other atheists as moderators. Notice he does not make it fair and have theists as moderators as well.  Anyhow, I was invited to this group by a Protestant youth. The group calls for members to introduce themselves and I did.  For the most part, members were polite except one individual who took to issue the mentioning of my academic credentials. He seemed envious and presented a sort of test to see if I knew about what I studied.  I messaged Alan and Walter about this individual and he did nothing at all. The group's rules call for the notification of bad members to the group's moderators, yet Alan took no action.  Anyhow, I showed this individual that his question made no sense because he misunderstood the concept he was asking me about.  Another individual also corrected him. After this, I seldom posted as the group looked boring and what not. Some people messaged me on it and I replied the best I could, others messaged me privately. Well, when my book was put on sale I posted the link in the group.  Immediately, these people came out attacking me.  The same people who were polite at first with the exception of that one guy who wanted to test me began to show their claws, so to speak.  After this, I noticed that this group was just full of trolls pretending to be atheist. I posted in the group making it clear that I do not want to waste time on trolls. This clearly got under the skin of many and the attacks continued.  M. Walter Saranetz even participated in the personal attack which completely makes him incapable of being a fair moderator.  This continued until he removed me from the group.  My removal shows the lack of integrity of both Alan Lee and M. Walter Saranetz; not to mention the cowardice of atheists who cannot handle an opposing view and just try to shut it out by force just like Islamists who use violence to shut down those who they disagree with.  Here below is my post saying who I take seriously and who I do not.  Notice Walter's libelous comment which is a personal attack and notice the rules prohibit personal attacks.

So Walter removes me just for trying to get people to be civil and adult in the group, go figure.   The owner, Alan Lee allowed it and never took action against the person who first attacked me when I joined the group nor against Walter who engaged in personal attacks which go against Alan's own rules.  Both violate the group's rules showing these men have a lack of integrity.  Only deranged dictators break their own rules. We can conclude that both Alan and Walter are dishonest, biased and frauds just like Dan Eastman.  

Next we have two of several trolls in the Atheist vs Theist community on Google + who immediately rushed to my book Amazon page to post false reviews.  Their reviews attack me and my book out of envy and spitefulness.  Neither of them own the book because the reviews were posted within hours after the book was released.  Amazon clearly states that processing takes 2 days, not to mention the shipping time.  There is no way anyone who ordered my book could receive it in hours and read it in that time to post an honest review.  Those who ordered my book informed me that their copy will be delivered around the 23rd of December which correlates with the processing time Amazon mentions on the page.   These trolls pretend to be atheist and post nonsensical posts while harassing Christians and took the opportunity to abuse Amazon's open review system.  Here are Robert Pratt and Canon:

fake reviews posted out of spitefulness and envy

Atheists today who push atheism as a form of free speech and expression while claiming religion is a controlling Fascist system are delusional.  They demonstrate that atheism is a fraud.  It is a sham that contradicts itself by pretending to be for free speech while being intolerant of speech that is contrary.  My advice to people who identify as theist (Christian etc) is to leave groups and communities like this.  You will not be treated fairly.  Those who run these groups and communities are insecure individuals who are afraid of contrary points of view that threaten their narrow scope of thinking.

Report these groups so Facebook and Google will remove them as these are havens of religious hate and discrimination.  If you are a lawyer reading this, please email me.  


Visit these groups and report them to Facebook and Google.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/religion.philosophydiscussion/

https://plus.google.com/communities/111179822253566656576

Exorcism Live - Do Not Watch It

Halloween is just around the corner and networks are starving for ratings especially since a popular World Series  between the Kansas City Royals and the New York Metropolitans is taking place and is taking away many viewers.  Destination America Network is not far behind. They are airing a live show tonight entitled "Exorcism: live!"  In this live show, participants will be visiting the location where the events surrounding the Exorcist movie took place.  In 1949, a young boy named Roland Doe (name used to protect identity) was allegedly possessed by the devil or demons. Jesuit priests were called in after a Protestant minister was unable to remove the entities. The real life event inspired the 1970's film.

Alleged psychic medium Chip Coffey will be the main participant who will conduct a seance and "exorcism" on the house located in Bel-Nor, Missouri.  Bishop Herman of the Archdiocese of St. Louis condemned the show and asked the producers to reconsider citing the dangers of calling on evil spirits and toying with them. However, Henry Schleiff of Discovery Communications ignored the concerns from the bishop.

The bishop is correct. This event will be calling upon demons and that is not a good idea.  While the show will be staged as these ghost shows usually are, they still are messing with entities that humans should not mess with. Moreover, lay people are not authorized to conduct exorcisms. Not even priests are allowed unless given permission by their bishop.  This Exorcism Live show is a mockery of the Catholic faith and will be channeling evil.

Moreover, this psychic medium Chip Coffey is a charlatan and an openly gay man who distorts Catholicism. Many have filed complaints against him for being fraudulent. He was also embarrassed on a live program when he was put to the test by skeptics. There is no such thing as a psychic or medium. Spirits do not "live" anywhere. All of this is superstition.  Also, Chip Coffey previously worked on a paranormal investigation show (Paranormal State) which was exposed as being staged. The show was eventually cancelled. See the sources below this post for more information on the fraudulent

I urge all Catholics and all my readers to not watch this program. You will be calling evil spirits into your home and endorsing fraud and the mockery of our faith.  

Do not watch the #ExorcismLive travesty on @DestAmerica conducted by @chipcoffey etc. You will be inviting evil. #catholic #Synod15 #trcot

— Sacerdotنs (@Sacerdotus) October 30, 2015

Source:

http://www.destinationamerica.com/tv-shows/exorcism-live-countdown/exorcism-live/

http://fox2now.com/2015/10/29/archdiocese-of-st-louis-warns-of-exorcism-dangers-before-tv-show/

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/fright-or-foul-archdiocese-warns-against-purported-live-tv-exorcism

http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=44712

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-live-exorcism-will-be-performed-on-tv-friday-heres-what-to-expect/2015/10/29/e49b8d3a-7dad-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html

http://www.catholic.org/news/ae/tv/story.php?id=65075

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/10/30/archdiocese-warns-against-playing-games-with-satan-ahead-of-live-tv-exorcism/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/14/morning-radio-host-interviews-psychic-and-puts-him-to-shame/

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/chip-coffey/atlanta-georgia-/chip-coffey-psychic-kids-paranormal-state-cyber-bully-pathological-liar-sociopath-twi-918391

http://www.ghosttheory.com/2008/11/04/paranormal-state-caught-faking-entire-show

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/10/30/archdiocese-warns-against-playing-games-with-satan-ahead-of-live-tv-exorcism/

'Sometimes you just cant let it go' - My Response

Twitter troll "Ellif_dwulfe" is at it again.  He is now playing the victim despite evidence showing his malice and abuse against myself and others.  Apparently, after I shot back at his poor attempts to defend Esther who blogs as "Rosa Rubicondior" and who was forced by Facebook to change the name "Rosa Rubicondior" because it is a fake name, he took to his blog to lie about me again.   

A friend sent me the text of the blog post which I will respond to on this post. "Ellif" seems to think that I am some villain out to get him, but he has it backwards.  He has targeted me online for no reason other than because I critique and refute atheism strongly and made "Rosa Rubicondior" look bad after she ran from debating me.  Since then, he has taken to task to be some "online lawyer" for "Rosa Rubicondior" defending her every post using lies even when she has been proven to be a fraud. 

"Ellif's" original content will be blue and my replies will be indented: 

Ellif_dwulfe writes:
Sometimes you just can't let it go
It's odd really, and frustrating.

Sacerdotus Replies

Sounds like a textbook psychology definition of "obsession." 

*What is OBSESSION?
a continual thought, concept, picture, or urge which is experienced as invasive and not proper, and results in significant fear, distress, or discomfort.
Psychology Dictionary: What is OBSESSION? definition of OBSESSION (Psychology Dictionary)
-http://psychologydictionary.org/obsession/

Frustrating?  Yes, distress, anger etc are signs of mental illness (http://www.mindhealthconnect.org.au/signs-mental-health-issue). 

Ellif_dwulfe writes:
A few times I've intended to just stop showing up Sacerdotus lies. His claims about people committing fraud, stealing money donated by others intended for charity or accusing people of posting tweets wanting him dead.

Sacerdotus Replies

What lies?  All "Ellif_dwulfe" has demonstrated is his cognitive bias and misconceptions. Nothing I do online will ever be truthful or honest to him.  He is too caught up in his fantasy world of being as "online atheist" that he is a prisoner of this social script and cannot be objective.  Notice how he never critiques "Rosa Rubicondior's" lies nor even writes about atheist Craig Hicks who killed three young Muslims.  Notice he never condemns "Rosa Rubicondior" for "endangering" "Manuel" but is quick to claim that I endanger others.  Instead, with him, it is all about "Sacerdotus." The claims I have made about atheist fraud, etc are supported by evidence.  To date, no receipts for donations were posted with full information. All we have seen are photoshopped receipts. Without a name, confirmation number and evidence linking the receipt to said blog owner, those images become invalid.  Any receipts posted can be fabricated or even borrowed from someone who actually donated and can passed off as legitimate while using the "I cannot post my full name for privacy reasons" as a front.  

Ellif_dwulfe writes:
Well with the threats escalating from Sacerdotus, combined with the claims of knowing my relatives details, then like last time I'll need to consider just how capable of the threats Sacerdotus makes he actually is.

Sacerdotus Replies

How much evidence does he need to know that I am serious about going after trolls?  There is no doubt that I will do what is necessary to end troll abuse.  

Ellif_dwulfe writes:
I know that he doesn't know my address, or even my name, since he's never got them right.


Sacerdotus Replies

Oh I surely do.  Hence, his pleas for me to remove it and constant demonstration of anxiety at its revelation.  No one panics over something unless it hit too close to home, no pun intended.  

Ellif_dwulfe writes:
I know that he can't prove any of the claims made against him as false because he refuses to do so (for example when "studious atheist / alex atheist" had the "yearbook" proving claims about Sac were false he just posted what appeared to be the cover with my address watermarked on.)

Sacerdotus Replies

All claims were proven as false.  There is no doubt about this.  Even when I go a step further and invite "ellif_dwulfe" and "Rosa Rubicondior" to Sacerdotus Hangouts so we can show each other our passports, both of them slither out of it.  This is because they know that my passport will contradict their lies.  So instead, they prefer to perpetuate their narrative that I am someone they deem I am.  It shows their dishonesty and malicious intent to defame my character and cause confusion among others.  As for a "year book," I have no idea what he is referring to.  I never posted any "year book."  "Studious Atheist" is a young atheist blogger and has nothing to do with me.  He is a friend of a Catholic woman who I also am friends with online.  She can attest to him being someone else since they communicate on a regular basis.  

Ellif_dwulfe writes:
But it shows just how desperate he is to be unchallenged, to have his lies appear true. Its odd really if he stuck to promoting catholicsm I likely never would have an issue with him in the first place.

Sacerdotus Replies

This is funny because I am always inviting people to challenge me to a debate.  My own site has a debate tab!  I also started back in March of 2015 "Atheist Open Mic" for the sole reason to give atheists a platform to speak on and challenge me, yet this fool thinks I want to be "unchallenged."  Notice how he prefers that I just "promote Catholicism" as if he has a say of what I do in life. This is because my critiques against atheism bring atheists to think and challenges their cognitive bias.  Therefore, it serves him to desire that I only promote Catholicism and not dissolve the poison of the atheism fallacy.  He knows that I am a threat to atheism.

Ellif_dwulfe writes:
But I've been informed that information he's posted alleging it's mine has led to people getting abuse and harrassment in real life.

Sacerdotus Replies

I would love for him to provide evidence of this.  Perhaps a contact number of the "people getting abuse" so that I can confirm with them.  I doubt he will do this because he is a liar.  If in fact this abuse and harassment is taking place, then he brought it upon them.  But, we all know he is lying. Moreover, he has shown no concern for "Manuel" who may be facing abuse, mockery and other threats from atheists because of "Rosa Rubicondior."  Hypocrisy much?  

Ellif_dwulfe writes:
I know he's perfectly willing to post private personal information, that he doesn't care who he hurts whether it's those who disagree with his lies and refute them or the image of his own catholic church.

Sacerdotus Replies

If the posting of it stops a troll from thinking he/she is almighty because he/she thinks he/she is anonymous, then damn skippy I will do so.  Trolls will always use anonymity to post online. This empowers them into thinking they can do anything, even behave in a manner that they do not behave like offline.  They feel they are untraceable and therefore have a false sense of invincibility.  Well, by posting information on where these trolls live etc, this breaks their power trip and hopefully will reduce or completely end their troll hobby.  "Ellif_dwulf" is being dishonest if he thinks the information is posted because the person disagreed with me. That is bloody hogwash!  I welcome disagreement.  My record online shows it.  Information posted is to thwart abusive trolls, not to take revenge against anyone who disagrees with me, that is silly. I have had my public disagreements with fellow Catholics and not once has any of their information been posted.  This is because these fellow Catholics are not trolling or abusing me online. Similarly, I have engaged several atheists in discussions or debates and no information on them was ever posted.  There was no need to because they were civil and did not target me like "Rosa Rubicondior" et all do.  

Ellif_dwulfe writes:
I have a family, and following his showing that he'll post addresses and threats of more, the concerns over how much further he'll take it if I continue I really, really have to stop.

Sacerdotus Replies

Yes he does have a family, a daughter in fact.  He also has offspring with autism.  That being stated, why spend time trolling, defaming and abusing others when it could be spent on time with the family?  Just to be clear, I will take it as far as the law allows me. In fact, I will contact child services in Maidstone to initiate an investigation to see if these children are being neglected due to "ellif_dwulfe's" internet addiction.  (http://www.kscb.org.uk/procedures/child-in-need-chin)    

Ellif_dwulfe writes:
No doubt this will be turned into a victory for him, that I ran scared, that I knew I couldn't defeat him, that he showed I'm a liar and that he beat the "troll".

Sacerdotus Replies

This is a victory not only for me, but for all those who are harassed online by deranged individuals who hide behind cartoon animals or old lady images believing themselves to be untraceable and powerful. I am truly hoping Facebook, Twitter, Google+ etc takes my suggestions seriously in regards to posting IP information in tweets and posts; as well as, preventing the use of VPN on their networks. Today's phone system has caller id. The name and number appears on the recipient's telephone. If this caller id system was implemented on phone lines, then why not on social media?  Granted, some phone line owners may opt to have a private number, but, recipients can also opt to block calls from these private numbers unless they unblock their number.  A system like this on Twitter etc would give a serious blow to trolls from all walks of life.  They will no longer be able to be anonymous. Therefore, they will be forced to behave knowing that a simple tweet or post will show their exact location.

Ellif_dwulfe writes:
To be honest? I don't care. He know's his lies got shown up time and time again. He knows that rather than refute them he had to take steps to intimidate, to release what he hopes is my address.

Sacerdotus Replies

Again, no lies got shown up, just "Ellif_dwulfe's" cognitive bias and misconceptions.  I and many others have refuted "Ellif_dwulfe's" et al claims already. Note, both refuse to go on webcam to further refute the identity they maliciously apply to me in order to discredit me.  This speaks volumes.  Also note that "Ellif_dwulfe" claims the address is not his but uses the word "intimidate" showing subliminally what the revelation of the address is doing to him.  If the address is not his, then he would not be feeling intimidated now to begin with.  If someone spread around that my address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue then I would not feel intimidated.  This is because this address is not mine so I have nothing to feel intimidated about.  So put two and two together: "Ellif_dwulfe" claims the address it not his but he is intimidated by the posting of it.  Yes, that makes perfect sense...

Ellif_dwulfe writes:
So following that and after seeking legal advice I'm stopping.  I'll stop refuting his lies here, and take the legal route instead.
Posted by Wulfwitch at 11:39

Sacerdotus Replies

I hope he is seeking legal advice because he will need it.  He left enough evidence of his stalking, libel and abuse for me to seriously go after him and have him thrown in prison.  Notice how his Twitter went private again.  I do not like to post what my plans are but he will find out soon the hard way.  

Editor's note:  As expected, "Ellif_dwulfe" only allows "Rosa Rubicondior" to comment on his blog.  Any dissenting comments posted, he removes.  He even labels those who disagree with him or try to correct him "Sacerdotus."  "Ellif" is afraid because he knows that no sane person believes his lies and any comment showing truth would hurt his credibility so he has to censor such comments.  Anyhow, "Rosa Rubicondior" posted these comments:


Rosa Rubicondior writes:
2 comments:

Rosa Rubicondior25 August 2015 at 18:48
Good luck with the legal route. If you need anything from me just let me know.

Rosa Rubicondior25 August 2015 at 19:15
I assume the simpleton is still sending abuse to that unfortunate woman in Vancouver he randomly hit on pretending he had discovered my real name and address. I expect the priest in Suffolk was relieved that he stopped harassing him.

Sacerdotus Replies

This imbecile does not realize that her friend Peter screwed up.  Dutch blogger Peter van Montfoort made a page specifically for "Rosa Rubicondior's" blog posts and other atheists on his site (Positief Atheisme).  He writes a bio for each atheist author and adds links to their writings and a photo.  Keep this in mind.  My Catholic friend found this site and informed me about it. The page had the image of "Esther Harrison."  "Rosa Rubicondior" claims this woman is in Vancouver and is not her but things do not add up.  As noted, Peter adds a photo for each atheist writer and naturally would do the same for "Rosa Rubicondior."  He obviously found the photo of "Esther Harrision." The only way he could have done this is by doing a search for "Esther Harrison" because that was the name "Rosa Rubicondior" gave him.  Why else would he post some lady's picture randomly?  He even admitted based on his wording that he was looking for a photo for "Rosa Rubicondior."  Since he admitted this, then that means that "Rosa Rubicondior" told him that her name is "Esther Harrison."  Since she did not provide a photo, Peter took it upon himself to Google one and found it.     See the proof here:

Here is the exchange between my friend "Catholicgadfly" and Peter.  Notice Peter admits to doing a Google search on his part for "Rosa Rubicondior."  Also note that when "CatholicGadfly" presses the issue as to why he would use a photo of "Esther Harrison" to represent "Rosa Rubicondior," he begins to deflect and avoids answering.  

"Catholicgadfly" questions him on why he would link "Esther" with "Rosa" and he never answered.  Note, that "ellif," "rosa" etc went through all lengths to get "CatholicGadfly" suspended.  Nevertheless, he can still see these tweets despite being suspended.  I will ask him for video confirmation of it to show that these tweets still exist on Twitter's servers despite his suspension.    

@StudiousAtheist No big deal. Simple wrong assumption at Google search on my part. Who would know better what Rosa looks like but Rosa?

— Positief Atheïsme (@positiefatheism) November 21, 2014

Here above is the tweet from Peter stating (based on his wording) that he did Google search on "Rosa" that is how he found the photo of "Esther."  This means that he knew that "Rosa Rubicondior's" real name was "Esther Harrison" and took it upon himself to do a Google search for "Rosa" in order to find a photo of her to add to her bio which he wrote on his blog site.  There is no other logical explanation as to why he would Google on his part for "Rosa Rubicondior" and find an image of "Esther Harrison." The only explanation is that he knew her name as "Esther" and searched, found that image and posted it.

So again, all of this is knowable due to Peter van Montfoort 's search for an image of her online using that name. How so? Well when Jeff (Catholicgadfly) inquired about Peter's "mistake," Peter went silent on this matter and began to deflect (sacramental wine comments etc) which speaks volumes to the name Esther Harrison being that of "Rosa Rubicondior."  He was caught and tried to deflect from answering "CatholicGadfly."  Jeff would then get suspended weeks later.  

Peter Van Montfoort clearly was looking for an image of "Rosa Rubicondior" to put on his blog and used the name "Esther Harrison" in order to find one. Why else would he do a Google search for that name (Esther Harrison) since that name produced the image he had posted on his atheist blog linking site?  The name "Esther Harrison" would  has to be connected to "Rosa Rubicondior" otherwise Peter would not have used it to attempt to find an image to post on his blog highlighting the "Rosa Rubicondior" blog.

Search for "Rosa Rubicondior" produced this image on Peter's site, he removed it now

This was how Peter had his bio for "rosa rubicondior" prior to removing the photo after she was exposed

Now if you notice, "Esther Harrison's" You Tube page here (https://www.youtube.com/user/sayteekay) it has the same botany imagery that "Rosa Rubicondior" loved to use on her Twitter accounts.

If you look at her website which is listed on her Google+ (https://plus.google.com/113720496280048045127/about) you will see that she is an atheist.  See her "about me" here in the screen capture:  

If you look through the "Rosa Rubicondior" blog, she is constantly writing on botany.  See the connection?  The clues are there

1. Peter searches for a photo of "Rosa" on Google but finds a photo of "Esther Harrison" instead meaning that he searched for that name, not "Rosa Rubicondior."
2. Why would he search for "Rosa Rubicondior" under the name "Esther Harrison" if it was not her name?  
3. A search for "Esther Harrison" will produce sites run by her showing images related to botany, just like "Rosa Rubicondior" used on Twitter and writes about on her "Rosa" blog. 
4. "Esther Harrison" is a former theist and now atheist according to the Phoenix' page "about me." 
5. "Rosa Rubicondior" got more defensive after I posted "Case of Rosa Rubicondior."  
6. "CatholicGadfly" was reported and suspended weeks after exposing this information.
7. "Rosa Rubicondior" is known to lie about her name, Facebook recently forced her to change her name "Rosa Rubicondior."  They do this when they know a name is not real.

https://www.facebook.com/rosarubicondior1?fref=nf

In closing, both "Ellif" and "Rosa" are frauds, deceivers and malicious trolls who exist online under the guise of atheism.  They are no such thing.  These are mentally disturbed individuals seeking to have a cheap thrill online by playing a "cat and mouse" game with theists, especially those who are aggressive such as myself. If they were so passionate about atheism then they would not hide using cartoon avatars and fake names.  Like Dan Arel or Richard Dawkins, they would use their real names and photos without issue.  

They both targeted me and they have made a big mistake.  As long as they continue posting lies about me, then I will continue to expose them and seek damages.  However, if they and their friends agree to apologize, recant their lies and remove all content related to "Sacerdotus" which they have written and promoted, then I will consider dropping the matter.  As a Catholic, I am not here to destroy anyone's reputation or put anyone in jail.  My job is about truth, mercy and love.  However, this does not mean that I will sit idle as some jerks seek to discredit me and my work.  I will use the laws and techniques available to put an end to such endeavors and will not stop.  So hopefully "ellif_dwulfe" will convince "Rosa" and his friends to remove all their nonsense and lies, apologize and recant their lies so we can end this once and for all without their lives being destroyed legally.   

Christian Lies- A lot of Malarkey

"And Jesus answered them, 'See that no one leads you astray.'" - Matthew 24:4

In 2004, Alex Malarkey, 6 years old would be in a traffic accident that would change his life.  He would suffer severe injuries to his spine, neck and even brain trauma.  After it was said it done, he became a quadriplegic.  However, Malarkey said that he saw angels catching his father in mid-flight as he was ejected from the vehicle.  He went to heaven and met Jesus as well as Satan. His account was so powerful that it was published in 2010 by Christian publisher, Tyndale House in the book, "The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven."

The book became an instant hit selling over 1 million copies and was on the best-selling list.  Many people described being moved by the boy's story.  It increased their faith.  The audience of this book is mostly Evangelical Protestants and some curious readers looking to read on what is now coined as "Heaven Tourism" stories.

This is not the first time a book of this nature has ever been written.  Many people claim to have died and "gone to heaven." They recall vivid images of watching themselves on operating rooms aas well as their travels to other dimensions and even heaven. Malarkey's story touched even more because it came from a young boy.  However, there is a problem.  The story is a lie.

Alex Malarkey wrote an open letter to Christian stores stating that he never died nor went to heaven.  The letter was posted on the blog, pulpitandpen.org blog.

“An Open Letter to Lifeway and Other Sellers, Buyers, and Marketers of Heaven Tourism, by the Boy Who Did Not Come Back From Heaven.”

Please forgive the brevity, but because of my limitations I have to keep this short.
I did not die. I did not go to Heaven.
I said I went to heaven because I thought it would get me attention. When I made the claims that I did, I had never read the Bible. People have profited from lies, and continue to. They should read the Bible, which is enough. The Bible is the only source of truth.

Anything written by man cannot be infallible.
It is only through repentance of your sins and a belief in Jesus as the Son of God, who died for your sins (even though he committed none of his own) so that you can be forgiven may you learn of Heaven outside of what is written in the Bible…not by reading a work of man. I want the whole world to know that the Bible is sufficient. Those who market these materials must be called to repent and hold the Bible as enough.

In Christ,
Alex Malarkey.”

Immediately, bookstores stopped selling the book and have pulled it off their shelves.  A spokesperson for Tyndale House stated that the book will no longer be produced.  The family of the boy claimed that they have complained about the book as having inaccuracies and exaggerated claims.

My Thoughts:

Every time I heard of these death experiences that result in a person meeting God or getting a tour of heaven, I am extremely skeptical.  While I am not saying that these events may not happen -I was not there - what I am saying is that there are psychological explanations for these events.  In many cases, the stories and things told to these people who have "died" contradicts revelation.  Jesus already gave us what we needed.  We have Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church to guide us.  There is no need to go and buy these books regarding people who claimed to have died and gone to heaven unless you are reading them as you would read a novel or something as entertainment.

Because of this retraction, many atheists and others are now collectively attacking all Christians believe all to be liars.  This is unfortunate indeed.  This is why the Catholic Church is not quick to approve alleged stories of apparitions or other events.  She investigates thoroughly each claim made. Even if she does approve of an apparition or event, she reminds the flock that these apparitions are not necessary and should point us to what has been revealed in the Sacred Deposit.

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. 

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations."  

 - Catechism of the Catholic Church

Please be careful with whatever you encounter out there in God's, Mary's or the Church's name. There is not need to go flock to view sites where people claim to have seen Mary or to anyone who claims to have the stigmata or any other supernatural gift.
 






Source:


http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/21/boy-who-came-back-from-heaven-alex-malarkey

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/01/15/boy-who-came-back-from-heaven-going-back-to-publisher/

http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/01/13/the-boy-who-came-back-from-heaven-recants-story-rebukes-christian-retailers/

Atheist Scam Alert

Please be aware of fraudulent activity on Twitter claiming to donate money to Oxfam.  Oxfam collects no such donations from Twitter accounts and/or blogs.  I have notified them of this activity and they are currently investigating and will take legal action against atheists or anyone using their organization's name to commit fraud.

Please report tweets attempting to represent Oxfam by soliciting donations to: Oxfam, Twitter support and your local law officials.

Did you know, if you buy stuff from Amazon through my blog, all commission will go to #Oxfam and it costs you nothing extra. #BeHumankind
— RosaRubicondior (@RosaReerected) October 29, 2013

Here is the email I received:

Oct 25 (4 days ago)


Dear Michael

Thank you for your email and for letting us know about your concerns regarding this Twitter user.

I have forwarded your email to a team to investigate this further and decide if and what action needs to be taken.

Thank you again for letting us know, please do let me know if you have any other questions and I will be happy to help.

With best wishes

(Name removed for privacy)
 Supporter Relations
 Oxfam GB
 Direct tel: +44 (0)300 200 1300
 Switchboard tel: +44 (0)300 200 1292
 E-mail: enquiries@oxfam.org.uk
 Website: http://www.oxfam.org.uk

 P.S. We would love to hear what you think. Whether it is good, bad or indifferent, knowing what our supporters think is vital to us if we are going to continue to improve how we communicate to the people who make our work possible. The survey will take less than 2 minutes to complete and any information that you provide will be anonymous and confidential. http://qnr.surveyshack.com/s/18jfGgAPhbD.Xe3

Screen shots.   I had to black out the person's name at her request as well as other private information (gmail contacts etc)

First response

My response

After a few emails, their conclusion

Second to last email

My last email

Reply to Jeff Catholicgadfly's inquiry
https://twitter.com/CatholicGadfly/status/530235399399288832

UPDATE 11/7/14

After much pressure, "Rosa Rubicondior" finally donated the monies to Oxfam today.  Oxfam sent Catholicgadfly this tweet.

@CatholicGadfly @Ellif_DWulfe @beebearninja @FreeAtheism Hi, We have confirmed that all donations made from the Rosa blog have been received
— Oxfam (@oxfamgb) November 7, 2014

Based on the wording (verb tense), it is understood that "Rosa Rubicondior" just made the donations.  The words "have been received" is present prefect tense meaning it is an action that occurred in the present-past.  For example, Let's say I just wrote a blog.  The "just wrote" means that I wrote it, it happened, but it happened recently, so it tells us of an action that happened already (past) but was recent (in the present).  So by Oxfam stating, "have been received" they are saying that the donations were sent already, but now in the present, not a year ago or long ago in the past.


See this video and links for more information:



http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/tenses.html
http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/tenses/present_perfect.htm
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/verbs/present-tense/present-perfect
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/601/01/



What is hilarious is that one of "Rosa's" sock puppets "ellif_dwulf" sent the englishpage.com to Catholicgadfly.  It was tweeted as proof that the donations were made long ago contradicting Catholicgadfly's tweet that "have been" is present-past.  Well the link ellif sent actually proves Catholicgadfly corrrect! haha

See this funny exchange:

@CatholicGadfly http://t.co/TtFXXvXz4Q "unspecfied time" @FreeAtheism @DarthNihilus1
— Ellif D'Wulf (@Ellif_DWulfe) November 7, 2014

Lol! That link agrees with me, did you even read it? @Ellif_DWulfe @FreeAtheism @DarthNihilus1 pic.twitter.com/1ZdLPM5uH1
— Jeff T. Follon MA. (@CatholicGadfly) November 7, 2014

YOU CANNOT use the Present Perfect with ... yesterday, ONE YEAR AGO, LAST WEEK. @Ellif_DWulfe @FreeAtheism @DarthNihilus1
— Jeff T. Follon MA. (@CatholicGadfly) November 7, 2014

"Rosa" supposedly donated last year correct? Well Oxfam by using "have been" disputes this. @Ellif_DWulfe @FreeAtheism @DarthNihilus1
— Jeff T. Follon MA. (@CatholicGadfly) November 7, 2014

Funny I have to give a British kid lessons on the language his people created.. @Ellif_DWulfe @beebearninja @testisfidelis @FreeAtheism
— Jeff T. Follon MA. (@CatholicGadfly) November 7, 2014

Ironically, the tweet from OxfamGB was sent just hours after Catholicgadfly filed a report to the American branch of Oxfam reporting "Paul" for misinformation.  See here:

Correct? I have to report their misinformation. @Ellif_DWulfe @beebearninja @FreeAtheism pic.twitter.com/oXBo2SDbc4
— Jeff T. Follon MA. (@CatholicGadfly) November 6, 2014

Note: The emails posted above are valid and accurate to the date they were received.  We were told that "Rosa Rubicondior" and her blog DID NOT donate at the time the emails were sent.  Well now she has donated today and I applaud her for finally handing in the money to Oxfam which she so proudly claimed she had done a year ago.  It took a year, but we forced her to donate it.  

The report Catholicgadfly filed obviously pushed "Rosa Rubicondior" to act quickly and donate the money before the dirt hit the fan, so to speak.  It also forced Oxfamgb to actually tweet this confirmation showing the donations were made in the present-perfect tense.  

My report forced Oxfam to tweet us! Ever wonder how they got my account?? @Ellif_DWulfe @beebearninja @testisfidelis @FreeAtheism
— Jeff T. Follon MA. (@CatholicGadfly) November 7, 2014

This was my intention all along. I wanted all to see that we cannot trust people claiming to be a middle man in order to collect money and donate to any organization. The pressure from the tweets, this blog post and the atheists who were manipulated into pursuing this case forced "Rosa Rubicondior" to do the right thing and donate.  

I will keep this post up as a testament to the fraud "Rosa Rubicondior" is capable of committed just in case she tries to collect money from others in order to "donate." 

Let's not forget the AdSense scam now: see: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/11/atheist-scam-ii-ad-sense.html