Herbert and Catherine Schaible asked God to heal their 8-month-old baby son with magic while he spent days struggling to breathe. He died last week. They were still on probation for manslaughter after letting their two-year-old son die of pneumonia in 2009 under similar circumstances: they sought the aid of supernatural beings with magical powers rather than doctors with medical degrees.
Imagine Herbert and Catherine Schaible had killed a toddler in 2009 with a savage beating or by neglecting it in favor of watching Star Trek DVDs for a week straight while it coughed itself to death. Would they have gotten probation for that or would they still be sitting in prison today? How likely is it that, once placed in the hands of a jury, Herbert and Catherine Schaible will ever spend time in prison for killing the second of two small children with religiously motivated medical neglect?
You might want to Google similar cases before you post your thoughts on the matter.
WTF do you mean whipping horse? If you in anyway disagree that the Catholic church as an entity, as a whole, should not be dismantled for the vast molestation cover-up then you are one twisted fuck, or you are ignorant of the facts. So which is it?
@JimmyRussell, we Americans killed an awful lot of children and their families in a trumped up war with Iraq, including a large intelligence cover-up or at least blunder.
We also enslaved and oppressed people forcibly kidnapped from Africa, nearly exterminated an indigenous population, on and on... Lots more kids experiencing a lot more suffering.
Do you think that America as an entity, as a whole, should be dismantled?
Yeah, actually I do. I think we could use a huge re-write on a lot of the fucked up shit we do. Now answer the fucking question.
"The scale of abuse cases [in the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal] was on the order of those that occur in the general population worldwide, among coaches and teachers and others." - Professor Robert
I presume Robert you are busy gathering the substantial amount of data required to back your extraordinary claim above. I'm sure no "true" Christian would ever distort the truth on a global scale (a mortal sin) to join other men in protecting child rapists.
You mentioned your involvement and familiarity with the Massachusetts investigation? Let's take a look at the "scale of the abuse cases" in that state and ensure everyone knows just how high you've set the bar for yourself.
Below are several excerpts from the official findings of the Executive Summary and Scope of Investigation into the Sexual Abuse ... as produced by Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Note, according to you, the secret child-rapist trafficking operation the Catholic Church operated in Boston occurs worldwide and on the same scale among the general population of coaches, teachers, and other occupations you have yet to specify. (The subtext being: Jeepers! Everybody does it! It's no big deal.)
From the Findings of the Report
"Top Archdiocese officials regularly addressed and supported the perceived needs of offending priests more than the needs of children who had been, or were at risk of being, abused. Top officials whose actions are detailed include: Cardinal Bernard Law, Bishop Thomas Daily, Bishop Robert Banks, Bishop Alfred Hughes, Bishop William Francis Murphy, and Bishop John McCormack."
- - - -
"The Attorney General’s investigation revealed that the magnitude of the Archdiocese’s history of clergy sexual abuse of children is staggering. Records produced by the Archdiocese reveal complaints regarding at least 789 victims. When information from other sources is considered, the number of alleged victims who have disclosed their abuse likely exceeds one thousand. The magnitude of the Archdiocese’s history of clergy sexual abuse is equally shocking if evaluated in terms of the number of priests and other Archdiocese workers alleged to have sexually abused children since l940. The investigation revealed allegations of sexual abuse of children made against at least 237 priests and thirteen other Archdiocese workers. Of these 250 priests and other Archdiocese workers, 202 allegedly abused children between l940 and l984, with the other forty-eight allegedly abusing children during Cardinal Law’s tenure as Archbishop."
- - - -
"There is overwhelming evidence that for many years Cardinal Law and his senior managers had direct, actual knowledge that substantial numbers of children in the Archdiocese had been sexually abused by substantial numbers of its priests."
- - - -
"Not only did the Archdiocese quietly transfer abusive priests to other parishes within the Archdiocese, but it also placed children at risk by accepting priests from other dioceses with full knowledge that they had a history of being accused of sexually abusing children."
- - - -
The Archdiocese also arranged for or assented to the transfer of sexually abusive priests so that they could work or reside in other dioceses in the country or abroad. The motivation for these transfers appears to have been to prevent further scandal within the Archdiocese and to accommodate the wishes of the alleged abusers.
- - - -
"The Attorney General’s Criminal Bureau initiated a grand jury investigation during the early summer of 2002 because of the slow pace at which the Archdiocese was producing records; the Archdiocese’s refusal to voluntarily produce certain categories of important documents, including medical and psychological records of priests evaluated or treated for pedophilia and ephebophilia, correspondence with the Vatican and Papal Nuncio, and related matters; and the fact that important witnesses either had refused to submit to voluntary interviews or had placed unacceptable restrictions and conditions on voluntary interviews." [NOTE: Cardinal Law left the country in December 2002. He now lives in Rome.]
- - - -
"[T]he Archdiocese has shown an institutional reluctance to adequately address the problem and, in fact, made choices that allowed the abuse to continue."
- - - -
For at least six decades, three successive Archbishops, Bishops and others in positions of authority within the Archdiocese operated with tragically misguided priorities. They chose to protect the image and reputation of their institution rather than the safety and well being of the children entrusted to their care. They acted with a misguided devotion to secrecy. And they failed to break their code of silence even when the magnitude of what had occurred would have alerted any reasonable, responsible manager that help was needed.
- - - -
[The last quotation below brings us full circle. Why is any of this relevant to my original point in this thread? Why did no clergy ever serve a day in prison for failing to report suspected child sexual abuse?]
"Although evidence gathered during the investigation establishes that senior Archdiocese managers did not report suspected child sexual abuse to public authorities, the state’s child abuse reporting law is not applicable because it was not expanded to include priests until 2002."
I think there are two problems here with getting the professor to address the facts head on. The first is that he is Catholic, and as such has spent his life surrounded by pedophiles, so they seem perfectly normal to him. As such, he believes that every corner of society is filled with pedophiles and the raping of children is just a fact of life - although he says he is appalled by it.
The second is that when pinned down he demands incontrovertible proof of any and all claims made that seem derogatory to his cult - yet when asked for evidence of any claims he has made against other organizations (which he thinks, in some twisted way, exonerates his cult) he tosses out faded memories of obscurely referenced articles or vaguely references conversations he has had with authorities in various fields. This is standard behavior for all theists - always demanding impossible levels of proof that their gods do not exist while 'overturning' any level of evidence thrown at them with vague, inaccurate, anecdotal recollections.
Actually Heather, I don't think Professor Robert can address facts head on. Originally I felt he was just another oleaginous sycophant, a man who puts the 'apology' in apologetics. But having read more of his contributions, I have found that I genuinely feel sorrow for him, as he is so desperately trying to defend the indefensible. In that it appears that cognitive dissonance is so deeply embedded in his psyche, I'm gently stepping back from any further attempt at interaction.
I hope he takes his beliefs with him to his grave, because an awakening to reality may very well have detrimental impact on his core psyche. Again, this is a situation where I am glad that he will never have to face the fact he is so utterly wrong - the oblivion that follows death will be a real kindness.
@ Heather and Strega;
I enjoy your comments ladies.
Poor Bob may he rest in oblivion.
@ Heather and Strega; I enjoy your comments ladies.
They're two of TA's finest posters.
I think there are two problems here with getting the professor to address the facts head on.
You nutshelled it. Robert's position is too weak to withstand an honest debate. So he uses the standard two step process. 1. Lie or exaggerate. 2. When challenged respond with more dishonesty or pull out the big gun: cowardice (don't respond at all).