Woody Allen ‘does not consider’ Dylan Farrow is ‘mendacity’ | Leisure

Woody Allen doesn’t believe Dylan Farrow “lies” in her claims that he molested her as a child.

The director of ‘Vicky Cristina Barcelona’ has repeatedly denied claims by his adopted daughter that he molested her when she was seven, and in a recent interview, the 85-year-old filmmaker reiterated his earlier claims that Dylan had been trained in what of her mother, his former partner Mia Farrow.

In the interview, which first aired on CBS Sunday Morning that weekend, he said, “I think she thinks so. She was a good kid. I don’t think she made it up. I don’t think so “She’s lying. I think she thinks that.”

Dylan’s allegations were first made when Woody split from Mia in 1992, and the filmmaker was not charged, despite prosecutors admitting there was likely cause for a criminal case.

However, Woody insisted that the idea that he molested his daughter was “absurd” and did not believe the allegations would be investigated at all.

He said, “Why would a man who is 57 years old? I’ve never been charged with anything in my life. I’m suddenly pulling up to Mia’s country house (age) seven in the middle of a controversial custody battle.” – old girl. It was just – on the surface, I didn’t think it needed investigation.

“It’s so absurd, and yet the smear has remained. And they still prefer to hold on to the idea that I molested Dylan, the possibility that I molested them. Nothing I have ever had with Dylan in my life did so could be misunderstood. “

Dylan recently recalled the “intense” and “stressful” experience of being up on her allegations nine times over a three month period as a child and admitted that she felt she had “lied” after herself had to defend repeatedly.

In the HBO documentaries ‘Allen v Farrow,’ which Woody has described as a “hatchet job full of falsehoods,” she said, “If I change a word here, they say I’m inconsistent if I use the exact same words that I do used every other time, I was trained. “

CBS News said they had decided to post the Woody interview now because of “renewed interest in the filmmaker controversy” following the four-part HBO documentaries.

They added in a statement, “Lee Cowan sat down with Woody Allen in July 2020 after his memoirs were published for Allen’s first major television interview in nearly three decades. The interview, which took place during an active news cycle last summer, is now given renewed interest in the filmmaker controversy.

“The Paramount Plus Exclusive is an opportunity to explore everyone, their career and the allegations in the context and with the depth that this story requires.”

Church buildings do not have billions mendacity round. They want PPP cash

To the Editor: My Church, St. Mary of the Assumption, received a US $ 125,000 Federal Paycheck Protection Program loan. (“The Catholic dioceses sat on billions collecting pandemic aid for taxpayers, ”4. February)

Since our church doors closed at the beginning of the pandemic, we’ve expanded our food bank and buried 275 people. We visit PIH Health Hospital in Whittier three times a week and answer emergency calls. We continue to teach children in our elementary school and celebrate the sacraments.

We were confused by government guidelines, but all of our services are held off-site because we believe it is safer to do so. We have also asked our senior community members and those with limited health to stay home and participate online. Our weekly participation is 25% compared to the pre-pandemic, and our offer is 75%.

With the PPP loan we were initially able to pay the salaries of our employees; When the money ran out we had to fire five employees.

It’s an old myth that billions of dollars are lying around in the Catholic Church. I am grateful that we qualified for a PPP loan. I think we spent the money well. If we qualify for another loan, our church will apply and use that money to satisfy more hunger, comfort more sick, bury more of our dead, and pay more salaries.

The Rev. Patrick Keyes, Whittier

..

To the editor: Why are churches being relieved by the CARES law at all?

Without question, churches are companies. Unlike a hair salon or restaurant, the 1st Amendment protects the churches’ independence from government regulations and taxes.

So, when times get tough and parishioners’ donations are falling, why should taxpayers work to save a church, no matter how noble its mission is?

Even church leaders are ambivalent about accepting PPP funds. In one Piece in Christianity Today last yearPastor Jon Costas asked, “Will accepting a large government grant rob our members the opportunity to make sacrifices and experience the Lord’s provision?”

His question gets to the heart of the establishment clause, which is designed to protect religions from dependence on government and the resulting perversion of the principles of their beliefs.

Gerald Gollin, Solana Beach