Sacerdotus -The Fraud Exposed

The blog post at https://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2013/05/sacerdotus-fraud-exposed.html, published on May 8, 2013, by an author named Bill Hounslow using the pseudonym Rosa Rubicondior, claims to expose an individual named Manuel "Manny" de Dios Agosto, allegedly behind the online persona 

@Sacerdotus

, as a fraud. The post accuses him of fabricating credentials, misrepresenting his past, and engaging in deceptive online behavior. Below, I’ll critically examine and refute key claims from the post, focusing on evidence (or lack thereof), logical consistency, and alternative interpretations, while adhering to a skeptical approach.

1. Claim: Manuel de Dios Agosto is

@Sacerdotus

The post asserts that Manuel de Dios Agosto, a supposed expelled seminarian from the Bronx, is the person behind the

@Sacerdotus

Twitter account and related online presence. It links this identity to various MySpace profiles and social media activity.

Refutation:

• Lack of Direct Evidence: The blog relies heavily on circumstantial connections—like similar usernames (e.g., "sacerdotvs" on MySpace) and overlapping interests (Catholicism, the Bronx)—but provides no concrete proof, such as official documents, IP address logs, or verified statements from credible sources tying Manuel de Dios Agosto to

  @Sacerdotus

  . Publicly available information alone, like a name in a newsletter, doesn’t confirm online identity.
• Assumption of Singular Identity: The post assumes one person operates all mentioned accounts without considering that multiple individuals could use similar aliases or that "Sacerdotus" (Latin for "priest") might be a common pseudonym among Catholic enthusiasts. No forensic digital analysis is presented to rule out coincidences or copycats.
• Alternative Explanation: The real

  @Sacerdotus

  could be someone else entirely, using the persona for unrelated reasons—perhaps a troll, a role-player, or a genuine seminarian. The blog’s author leaps to a specific individual without exhausting other possibilities.

2. Claim: Manuel Was Expelled from St. Joseph’s Seminary

The post cites a New York Catholic newsletter from Claudia McDonnell, claiming Bishop Garmendia announced Manuel de Dios Agosto’s admission to a Franciscan seminary, and asserts he was later expelled from St. Joseph’s Seminary in Yonkers for misconduct.

Refutation:

• Ambiguity and Inconsistency: The post doesn’t clarify if the “Franciscan seminary” and St. Joseph’s Seminary are the same institution. St. Joseph’s in Yonkers is a diocesan seminary, not Franciscan, suggesting a factual mix-up. No expulsion record is provided—just an assertion. A newsletter announcing admission doesn’t prove later events.
• No Corroboration: No seminary records, statements from officials, or even dates of the alleged expulsion are cited. A single newsletter mention from an unspecified year (pre-2013) isn’t evidence of enrollment, let alone expulsion. Seminaries don’t typically publicize expulsions, so this claim rests on hearsay.
• Counter-Evidence Potential: Without access to primary sources (e.g., seminary archives), the claim is unverifiable. If Manuel never attended, or if no such person exists with that history, the narrative collapses. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, and it’s unmet here.

3. Claim:

@Sacerdotus

Fabricates Academic Credentials

The post alleges

@Sacerdotus

boasts of degrees from Lehman College and other institutions, calling these claims fraudulent based on a supposed honors list omission and the author’s disbelief.

Refutation:

• Weak Evidence: The blog mentions a “list of Lehman College honor students” from February 23, 2012, in The Bronx Journal, claiming Manuel’s name appears but questioning his graduation. However, honors lists don’t prove or disprove degree completion—students can graduate without honors. No transcript or registrar confirmation is offered to disprove the degrees.
• Speculative Dismissal: The author assumes

  @Sacerdotus

  lies because the credentials seem exaggerated, but this is subjective. People can earn degrees and still act pompously online—behavior doesn’t negate qualifications. Without evidence of non-enrollment, this is an argument from incredulity.
• Possible Truth:

  @Sacerdotus

  could have attended Lehman or other schools as claimed. The blog doesn’t investigate enrollment records or contact institutions, leaving the accusation hollow.

4. Claim: Psychotic Behavior and Obsession

The post paints

@Sacerdotus

as a “narcissistic fantasist” obsessed with Rosa Rubicondior, citing abusive tweets and blog posts as evidence of mental instability.

Refutation:

• Biased Framing: The author interprets

  @Sacerdotus

  ’s online activity as psychotic without clinical evidence. Heated online exchanges—common in ideological debates—don’t equate to mental illness. The “obsession” could be mutual, as Rosa dedicates a detailed post to

  @Sacerdotus

  , suggesting reciprocal fixation.
• Lack of Context: No specific tweets or posts are quoted verbatim with timestamps, making it impossible to assess their tone or frequency independently. Screenshots or links (functional in 2013) might have existed, but their absence in the text weakens the claim today.
• Alternative View:

  @Sacerdotus

  ’s behavior could reflect a zealous defender of faith clashing with an atheist blogger—hardly rare on social media. Calling it “psychotic” is a rhetorical flourish, not a substantiated diagnosis.

5. Claim: Public Information Confirms the Narrative

The post ends by saying

@Sacerdotus

himself provides the incriminating details through his own social media, implying self-exposure.

Refutation:

• Circular Reasoning: If

  @Sacerdotus

  is Manuel, and Manuel posted this info, it’s only “public” because the blog assumes the identity link. Without independent verification, this is self-referential—using the conclusion to prove the premise.
• Selective Interpretation: The blog cherry-picks posts (e.g., a MySpace entry about 9/11) to fit its story, ignoring that millions shared similar sentiments. Generic content doesn’t uniquely identify anyone.
• No Validation: No third-party confirmation—like a friend, colleague, or official record—ties these posts to Manuel de Dios Agosto. The “flood of claims” could be from an unrelated troll or a different person entirely.

Broader Critique

• Ad Hominem Over Substance: The post focuses on discrediting

  @Sacerdotus

  personally rather than engaging his arguments (e.g., about atheism or Catholicism). Even if he’s a fraud, that doesn’t invalidate his ideas—a logical fallacy Rosa employs.
• Unfalsifiable Narrative: By claiming

  @Sacerdotus

  deletes evidence when exposed, the author creates a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose scenario. Absence of proof becomes proof of guilt, which is intellectually lazy.
• Motive Questioned: Rosa’s tone suggests a vendetta, possibly fueled by prior online spats (hinted at in comments). This undermines objectivity—why invest so much in “exposing” one obscure figure unless personal stakes are involved?

Conclusion

The blog post fails to substantiate its central claims with hard evidence, relying instead on speculation, unverified sources, and leaps of logic. It doesn’t prove Manuel de Dios Agosto is

@Sacerdotus

, that he was expelled from a seminary, or that his credentials are fake. At best, it’s an unproven hypothesis; at worst, it’s a smear built on shaky ground. A skeptical reader should dismiss it for lack of rigor—claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If Rosa aimed to expose fraud, the mirror might be closer than intended.