Diocese: Priest accused of abuse has HIV

Diocese: Priest accused of abuse has HIV

hosted.ap.org

A former priest accused of sexually abusing children in two states is HIV positive, Catholic diocese officials said Thursday.

Last week, a leader in the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth heard someone mention that the Rev. Philip A. Magaldi has the virus that causes AIDS, said diocese spokesman Pat Svacina. The diocese leader then got verbal confirmation from Magaldi as well as a letter from his doctor who said he has HIV, Svacina said. Church officials said they believe he has been HIV positive since 2003.

The diocese then alerted the alleged victims - at least five minors in two states - and the parishes where Magaldi served for nearly four decades, Svacina said.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So a priest who is accused of abuse also has HIV?

He's also an embezzler who spent time in prison in 1992.

What the hell is going on here?

It may be fair to assume that he didn't get HIV from one of the abuse victims - maybe in prison?

Or could he just not keep it in his pants and had sexual relations with who knows how many?

The really sad thing is that he may have passed this on to alleged victims of abuse.

Some may look at this as devine retribution - I don't.

I look at this as a sexual predator ruining lives a second time.

I also think that this kind of thing does the RCC no favours at all.

hosted.ap.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 15/2/2008 by budski]

some more from this story:

Magaldi is one of six priests in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth accused of abusing minors, according to 700 pages of previously secret files that were part of a sexual abuse lawsuit settled in 2005. The documents were released by a judge last year.

In Rhode Island, three separate allegations were reported in 1998, 2002 and last year against Magaldi.

source

This is a man with no thought or concern except for his own gratification.

Not that I'm advocating for the priest in any way.

It would depend on "how" me molested them. If he just touched them, there is no blood contact. If he did other things, then he could have passed it along.

Either way, he should be in jail, IMO. But, not just because of the HIV. Because he molested children and could have passed the HIV along.

He should be tried for both crimes IMO.

If he knew he had HIV and molested them anyway, wouldn't that count as attempted murder?

What if he only touched them? With no way of transmitting HIV, is it still attempted murder?

BTW, I'll say it again. He should be in jail for his crimes.

Why do they seek out the priesthood as their occupation ?

Is it because it's an easy living ?

Is it because they enjoy the feelings of 'respect', 'power' and 'control' ?

Is it because they are unable or unwilling to make it in a real world ?

Is it because they have decided they don't want the responsibility of supporting a family ?

Is it because it's a job that provided room, board, wage and secure employment ... and no pressure to 'produce' anything ?

I mean, these are ordinary, average men who undertake to spread God's word and do God's work.

But it's clear that many of them don't give two hoots about God or society.

They use and abuse their position as 'holier than thou'. They use God !

There's NO punishment that can undo the damage they do.

Have you known boys (in particular) who've been molested, sexually abused, raped, forced into perverse sex by a priest ? I have. They're often a mess throughout their lives. Their lives (and often those of their wives and children) are marred and often destroyed by paedophile priests.

So it's not 'just' the immediate victim who suffers .. it's the parents and siblings and extended family and even friends of that victim. And when the victim reaches adulthood and embarks on what they intend to be 'normal life' with wife and children of their own ... then those wives and children .. and often their children's children ... also suffer.

All because one guy who wears a collar and who hides behind that highly-respected and powerful edifice: The Church .. decides that yes, he'll 'have' that cute little seven year old boy who looks up at him with innocent, awed and trusting eyes.

There's just too much of this going on. Always has been. And until recently, the paedophile priests lived long and comfortable lives .. respected by all, their huge egos being polished by everyone in the community for no other reason than they are 'priests'. They go on to comfortable retirement .. still respected and virtually genuflected to by everyone in every street they walk .. just because they wear that collar or hassock or whatever. Their secrets are safe .. or were until recently .. because WHO would point a finger at a priest ! Who would dare !

It's about time people acknowledged that priests are men. That's all .. men. They eat .. they fart .. many don't bother washing their hands after going to the bathroom .. they're as prone to gluttony and greed, to 'impure' thoughts, to disgusting actions and thoughts as any OTHER men. They were born of man, not of God. They are supposed to do God's work. But they are NOT 'holy' .. they are simply men who're supposed to be doing a JOB. For which they're amply rewarded. Or they wouldn't want the job. The closest they come to 'holy' is no more 'close' than any OTHER member of the community .. at best.

At worst, they're foul perverts in disguise.

Celibate priesthood doesn't live up to its claims, more often than not.

The truth that's emerging of late is not new. It's been going on for as long as there have been priests, rabbis or any other 'servants of God'.

They can get away with it. And they have. And their priest buddies and church heirarchies have always known and have condoned it .. no, I'm not interested in a debate .. they've condoned it, as has been made clear by the fact paedophile priests have been moved from one diocese to the next, by their fully-aware seniors, in order their crimes may go unpunished, unpublicised. Because the 'religion industry' is scared of losing its reputation, power, control and profits .. is scared it's little scams will come to an end if the public learns the truth.

Jail for priests ? No. Not punishment enough. They're released and go right back to it.

Priests who in any way sexually abuse minors are deserving of punishments that fit the crime. Extraordinary punishments for crimes of extraordinary baseness and betrayal.

For example, the victim's father and male relatives should be allowed say, 20 minutes in which to mete out their own brand of punishment. Next offence: the victim's male relatives are allowed 40 minutes. And so on.

Or ... the Church might like to accept the alternative, which is that ALL those who've decided to enter the priesthood (of whichever denomination) must first agree to be physically and chemically castrated.

Obviously priests can't be trusted to maintain their vows of chastity .. communities NEED to be assured that priests will NOT sexually interfere with children ... so ... very thorough castration from the outset is the solution.

My attitude is: Church .. take it or leave it. Castration or get off the pot. You've failed to live up to your mandate and communities can no longer afford to support paedophiles with crucifixes around their necks .. NOR should communities be required to tolerate same.

In other words, a type of sharia law?

Let the punishment fit the crime is one of the foundations of shria law - is this what you advocate?

reply to post by budski



............................

It's my belief that punishment should set an example .. should act as a deterent.

Compensation for the victim is a 'closing gate after horse bolted' issue, in most instances. Most victims would vastly prefer that their suffering had never occurred.

I don't put labels on my opinions and don't know why you're attempting to do so.

'Sharia law'. Is that supposed to reflect negatively ?

Have you thought about what you wrote and asked me ?

Do you have an objection to punishment fitting the crime ?

Do you advocate that punishment should not fit the crime?

What label would you apply to punishment which did not address the crime ?

Isn't it logical that punishment should be of equal measure to the hideous nature of a crime ?

Is punishment for its own sake the aim .. or do you believe that punishment should also act as deterent, as example .. and in this way make a positive contribution, rather than being merely 'punishment' ?

Why did you introduce 'sharia law' into the mix ?

I made no distinction between Christian or Judaic or Buddhist 'priests'.

Why are you differentiating ?

If we go back in Church history, we learn the Church burned women alive, disembowelled them, strapped them into chairs, submerged them in ponds and drowned them.

We learn the Church believed moles were 'signs' that women had had intercourse with Satan (Satan being the Church's most notable contribution to religion).

We learn the Church 'pricked' women with pins and depending on if they bled and from which part of their bodies, those women were judged to be 'witches' .. servants of yes .. Satan again.

We learn the Church murdered millions in the name of God and because of the Church's obsession, preoccupation with Satan .. devils .. sex .. and hatred of women.

History is filled with abominations engaged in by the Church.

Did the punishments 'fit' the crimes ?

Or did those 'punishments' (basically for being female and having warts and moles) exceed the non-crimes to immeasurable degree ?

Maybe you'd like to bring Church atrocities more up to date?

If so, we can discuss the young women who were treated as pariahs by the Church as recently as a few decades ago (could still be going on, actually) for the 'crime' of becoming pregnant without a marriage-certificate.

For such a 'crime', young women were forced into servitude throughout their term, after which their child was taken from them .. for ever. Those young women weren't even 'allowed' to hold their own baby for a few precious seconds .. let alone keep their own children.

Punishment ? By the Church ! For becoming pregnant ! At the same time priests were impregnating young girls, raping little boys .. and very often while they had secret wives and children of their own.

Priests are supposed to be celibate, lifelong.

They undertake to be celibate .. they take a VOW, before God, to be celibate.

Then they rape and molest the children of the parishoners they've undertaken to SERVE. Not RULE. SERVE.

A betrayal to God, foremost.

Betrayal of their vows. Demonstrated failure of their mandate. Inability to keep their promises and worse. Betrayal of society and the organisation (the religion-industry) which employs them.

Non-celibate priests are failures.

Paedophile priests are beyond an abomination !

Shaming and naming them hasn't stopped them.

'Censure' by their superiors hasn't achieved much.

Their own vow to God they've proved to be meaningless and a lie.

They're still there. Still raping and molesting other people's children.
Clearly naming and shaming hasn't acted as too effective a deterent.

They obviously need something that will jar them out of their smug ' I am untouchable' complacency .. something they WILL take notice of, because it has the potential to hurt them instead of 'just' little children.

A black and blue paedophile priest might get intended paedophile priests' attention.

But why bother with closing that gate once the paedophile priest has molested yet another child, thus scarring it for life ?

The community has a right to assurances that priests, especially, will not rape and molest and destroy the children in their charge.

Thorough castration will not only assist priests to uphold their vow (of celibacy) to God and the community ... it will make them immune to the 'temptation' they claim they succumbed to.

Perfect solution. And as priests claim it their intention to remain celibate, they should welcome castration, shouldn't they ? They should embrace it. After all .. what would castration deny them .. seeing they've sworn to remain celibate ?

No, I don't agree that the punishment should fit the crime - and sharia law does that more than any other.

We claim to be civilised, then advocate state sponsored murder - despite the many studies which show that capital punishment actually causes worse crimes.
When people know they will be executed, they have nothing to lose, so what's to stop them committing more and worse crimes once they have stepped over that line.

If we as a society condone murder IN ANY FORM then we are in danger of debasing ourselves and losing sight of that which makes us what we are - supposed civilised nations.

BTW, I'll post and "label" as you call it, any way I please as long as it's within the t&c.

[edit on 17/2/2008 by budski]

Hummm, this priest is in Texas? Then I'm sure he will be dealt with to a point where he has to move and set up a new place to live....Texans don't take too kindly to pedofiles, especially those from behind the pulpit!

Originally posted by realmatrix
Texans don't take too kindly to pedofiles, especially those from behind the pulpit!

As opossed to other states? We, here in DC, don't look too kindly on them either.