NYT: In West, Accusations of Abuse by Priest Dating Back to 1940's

[LAGC]

WINSLOW, Ariz. — Alfred Moya was stopping at a restaurant in rural Gallup, N.M., on his way home to Phoenix in the summer of 2007 when he happened to glance at a newspaper article about children who had been sexually abused by a priest.

Suddenly, his thoughts flashed to his own days as an altar boy...
..
..
A recent study commissioned by the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops found the rise of sexual abuse in the church coincided with the social and sexual tumult of the 1960s and ’70s. But the story of Father Hageman, as told through recently released church documents chronicling his troubles, begins much earlier.

Indeed, the priest has long haunted the deeply Catholic Hispanic communities around Holbrook, Winslow and Kingman, Ariz. His accusers said that he was “dumped” in impoverished, nonwhite communities by church officials to avoid scandal, an assertion that has emerged in other recent abuse cases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/us/11priest.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Guess this kind of blows apart the Church's excuse that the "wild and turbulent" 1960's caused them to keep shuffling abusive priests around...

This shit's probably been going on since the Catholic and Orthodox split in 1054 A.D. -- maybe even before that.

[BillsCatz]

1. What, again?

I believe perverted priests have been around for far longer than anybody today would even imagine, like centuries. I was almost raised a Catholic, but early in life saw through the the pomp and circumstance to realize that a bunch of sheltered old men wearing dresses and passed down morals for the rest of us. And God himself is ready to give me a beat-down for eating meat on Friday, because they claimed He told them so, right? No thanks.

But I clearly recall in the very early sixties, years before the moral confusion claimed by the church, we all knew which priests to stay away from or not be alone with. "Father Malarkey is weird, don't accept any invites from him." My older brother mentioned being taken to a drive-in movie by the local padre, around 1958, and halfway through the first movie dude whipped out a pint of vodka and his male unit.

The Church simply doesn't care anymore what the public thinks, just pay some nitwit to claim it was all the result of "social unrest" and forget everything before that. And if people complain anymore, just close all the churches in their areas. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." More atrocities have been committed in the name of God than for the sake of God.

[damntexdem]

2. It's a real shame how the 60s caused this abuse in the 40s.

Seems like social changes should respect time ordering, not cause effects two decades earlier.

;-)

[rug]

3. It's been going on since the penis was discovered.

[laconicsax]

4. And that makes it ok?

:shrug:

[rug]

5. It makes it common.

[laconicsax]

6. I would agree that priests raping children is common. n/t

[rug]

9. I would agree that statement is straw.

[laconicsax]

10. It's your own argument.

rug: "It's been going on since the penis was discovered."
laconicsax: "And that makes it ok?"
rug: "It makes it common."

[Goblinmonger]

7. Is the instiutional

cover up and shell game and putting the offenders in a new parish to do it again by an organization that purports to be a source of morality and justice in the world common?

Just sayin.

[rug]

8. Institutions have a long history of coverups to protect the institutional interests.

Even schools.

[trotsky]

11. So it's your position that your church is no more moral than any other human institution?

There could be hope for you yet.

[rug]

12. Not in that regard.

[trotsky]

13. So apart from covering up for and protecting child rapists,

they're OK?

[rug]

15. They're not too good riding elevators.

[skepticscott]

14. In what regards

ARE they more moral than other human institutions?

[rug]

16. Pick one and I'll tell you.

How about AIG?

[trotsky]

17. Hmm, both sitting on billions in assets...

that they acquired through questionable and unscrupulous means?

I like this game!

[rug]

18. You don't play it well when you're playing with your own statements.

But I guess you're used to it.

[trotsky]

25. Since you're unwilling (or unable) to offer your own...

you leave everyone else with no choice. You slink away in defeat with a series of one-liners every time. So very predictable.

[skepticscott]

19. Since it was you who said

"Not in that regard", presumably you have in mind some regards in which they are. Not that I'd be surprised if you can't come up with any.

[rug]

20. I do. Not that I have any interest in playing with you.

[skepticscott]

21. Not a surprise

since your "playing" usually ends up with you being the intellectual pinata.

[rug]

22. Lol, if you say so.

[skepticscott]

24. Your own words

or lack of them, speak the loudest.

But I have to admit, "I know, but I'm not telling you" was exceptionally deep.

[dimbear]

23. The Old Testament laments that on a certain day God could do nothing because of iron chariots.

In this case God could do nothing because of zoot suits. My friends, is He as powerful as He is rated?