T
The_Scott
Guest
Read more: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1203743.htm
Please keep the discussion civilized, and please follow CAF rules.
Bishop Finn convicted on one charge of failure to report abuse [Catholic News Service]
- Status
Please keep the discussion civilized, and please follow CAF rules.
K
kelvinf
Guest
Good to know he is a free man.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Very sad. Child abuse, sexual included is so serious and devastating, and the effects are lifelong. It’s disappointing to see such a weak maximum sentence.
Anyone who enables the abuse of children should be held much more accountable.
Anyone who enables the abuse of children should be held much more accountable.
B
Bill_Martin
Guest
Well said.
R
roveau
Guest
I think there is a similar case out this way yet to go to trial. I think the case dates back to the 1990s. There will be more of these trials to come I suspect.
B
Bill_Martin
Guest
I would not be surprised if there are more as well. Hopefully those involved are found and prosecuted.
S
SpeakInSilence
Guest
I don’t think the Bishop had any intention to harm children, you might think he deserves a larger maximum sentence, but you are not the judge, and good thing too because spite has no room in a court of law.
I’m sure the Bishop reflects daily on the errors of his ways, and may God grant forgiveness to all those who ask for it, and guidance for all the children that were horribly wronged in this whole ordeal.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
The priest guilty of the abuse received punishment under federal law, with conviction on at least one count for each of five victims, for a total of six counts. He pled guilty.
The bishop was charged for failing to act on information and evidence brought to his attention.
From the last paragraph of the article, it appears that a case is still open against the diocese itself, and the matter is thus not yet fully litigated.
B
Bill_Martin
Guest
A larger sentence for harboring child abusers is not a matter of spite; it’s a better deterrent against it happening in the future. Anyone who knows about child abuse and does nothing is part of the problem.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I understand what he was charged for. But just like I think women who turn a blind eye to their husbands molesting their kids and teachers who know about abuse and do nothing should get harsher sentences, so should this guy.
When you know that a monster is causing that kind of pain and harm to children, failing to act makes you a monster too.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
What was* his* sentence? The Bishop didn’t get any punishment for covering it up.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
I was trying to figure that out, but only know from the articles I’ve seen that each count carries a sentence of up to 15 years. There was no mention of final judgment or whether these sentences could run concurrently.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
I was simply outlining the facts. I personally have no sympathy for “cover ups” in these cases. Yet, it seems as if even the maximum penalty for the bishop’s charge was not all that severe. The Church, of course, is free to consider action and penalty of its own.
T
The_Scott
Guest
Well, I don’t think it’s covering the abuse up. That implies an active role (ie. destroying documents, moving the abused to another place, etc). It seems like Bishop Finn passively avoided the abuse, by simply doing nothing about it.
I’m not a lawyer or a legal expert in any way, so I’m not sure if there is a real difference between passively ignoring the evidence and actively avoiding the evidence.
I’m also pretty sure that the sentence would have been different had Fr. Ratigan actually abused or molested children. From what I gathered, he possessed child pornography and took lewd pictures of children. He didn’t actually touch or molest anyone, if i remember correctly. I’m not excusing him at all, though.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
At least the guilty priest in this case pleaded guilty, a marked contrast from the cases of physical abuse where the allegations are denied throughout. Does not excuse anything, but does at least indicate a level of penitence.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
If you know of a crime, and this is crime against children, and don’t report it, it’s cover-up, IMO.
What would you have to get a child to do to make the picture qualify as “lewd?” Do you think, since he pled out, that there was very likely more to the original charges? Such as, a lot of physical contact? Because there is no upside to pleading guilty for him unless the charges were reduced, sometimes to acts the defendant hasn’t actually committed? (I was a cop from a family of cops and criminal attorneys, so this is how it works, pretty much.) Do you think children would be exploited, kidnapped, forced into sex, raped and photographed while doing it if there was no market? Do you think the priest who possessed the child porn has some responsibility for the abuse of the children in the pictures?
T
The_Scott
Guest
In your opinion, sure. I agree. But is there a legal distinction between the two scenarios? I’m not asking you specifically, but the general forum. Any lawyers/legal experts willing to chime in?
I apologize. The use of the term “lewd” was very misplaced. I should have used a different word. I said lewd because, if I remember correctly, Fr. Ratigan took pictures himself of children’s panties and underwear. There wasn’t any nudity with the pictures he took himself (not the child pornography he had), but they were definitely offensive in a sexual manner. You’re right, though, that lewd was still a misplaced adjective for this scenario.
When I said in my original post that “the sentence would have been different,” I was referring to Bishop Finn’s sentence, not Fr. Ratigan’s. Just to clear the ambiguity with my post.
I admit I am unsure about how the child pornography market works (I am grateful for my ignorance in some ways, frankly). I certainly understand that those who deliberately purchase/obtain these images only enables the rapists and molesters to continue what they are doing.
I’m not excusing Fr. Ratigan’s behavior at all. But I still feel like there’s a large difference between having child pornography and making child pornography. Yes, the former group (those who watch it/obtain it) are very sick individuals and need to be put away for both their own protection and for society’s protection; but those who make the images and videos, in my opinion, are one hundred times worst.
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
He may not have gone to jail, but I suggest that he’ll never be free of this.
R
ringil
Guest
A really sad situation all around.
I pray that our Bishops are doing the right thing now.
I guess I have to ask- Is finn going to remain as the Bishop? I don’t believe that would be appropriate.
I pray that our Bishops are doing the right thing now.
I guess I have to ask- Is finn going to remain as the Bishop? I don’t believe that would be appropriate.
C
creole54
Guest
The priest pled guilty to five counts of producing child pornography. He has not been sentenced yet, but all reports indicate he will likely get life in prison. And yes, some of the pictures did include nudity…he had pulled up one child’s nightie and took pictures of her genitals while she slept.
Bishop Finn, in my opinion, was most definitely guilty of failure to report and failure to protect the children in this diocese, and deserved a conviction. I wish the sentence had been a bit stronger. There’s so much more to the story than is being reported.
And yes, I do live in the diocese and know some of the people involved.
I know I need to continue to pray for our bishop, but gosh…sometimes it’s hard to be sincere.
Bishop Finn, in my opinion, was most definitely guilty of failure to report and failure to protect the children in this diocese, and deserved a conviction. I wish the sentence had been a bit stronger. There’s so much more to the story than is being reported.
And yes, I do live in the diocese and know some of the people involved.
I know I need to continue to pray for our bishop, but gosh…sometimes it’s hard to be sincere.
- Status