Bishop Finn convicted on one charge of failure to report abuse [Catholic News Service]

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Scott
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
General consensus is yes, he’ll remain in his position. Our priest doesn’t think he’ll be removed.
 
Julia_Mae said:
If you know of a crime, and this is crime against children, and don’t report it, it’s cover-up, IMO.
Click to expand...
It definitely is a cover up, had a civil case here 25 years ago, through female whispers heard a child was having her head held in a toilet and flushed, so I reported it.

NOTHING ! was ever done by the authority’s, she is 30 + now…some of those so-called child protection Agencies have a lot to answer for…
 
ringil said:
So do folks think he will remain the Bishop?
Click to expand...
I think allowing him to do so would be a slap in the face to the victims and it would send a bad message to the world about how seriously these cover ups are being taken by the church.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
I think allowing him to do so would be a slap in the face to the victims and it would send a bad message to the world about how seriously these cover ups are being taken by the church.
Click to expand...
Be carefull of the word coverup
The Bishop was convicted of ignoring. Not covering up
This blind eye or denial is indicitive of the huge problem we face with child abuse.
600,000 to 3,000,000 case per year.
Its a serial crime so if the abuser is reported right away you could geometrically reduce the number of cases annually

This is allowed to happen because people from all walks of life choose to take the easy way and ignore.it . Its difficult to get involved. But its necessary
Are you willing to push for the trial of mothers or fathers who turned a blind eye
For the removal of school principals
or are you only interested in helping out us Caatholics
 
A preliminary point: Bishop Finn was not convicted. In Missouri a conviction requires a finding of guilt and the imposition of a sentence. Bishop Finn received a SIS - Suspended Imposition of Sentence. I.e., if he completes the terms of his probation, the case will be closed without him ever being sentenced, and he will never have been convicted.

View attachment 14806

Attached is the stipulation of facts. Both sides agreed what the facts were, and left it up to the judge to decide if it was a violation of the law. Here’s the law in Missouri:

“When any … person with responsibility for the care of children has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been or may be subjected to abuse or neglect or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse or neglect, that person shall immediately report or cause a report to be made to the division in accordance with the provisions of sections 210.109 to 210.183.” Section 210.115.

So, the issue was whether or not the facts contained in the stipulation gave Bishop Finn “reasonable cause to suspect” abuse. There were two counts. One for earlier events, and one later. The judge determined that at the beginning, Bishop Finn did not have cause to suspect abuse, and so he was found not guilty on count one. On count two, concerning the later time period when problems kept occurring, he was found guilty.

I would urge everyone to read the stipulation of facts before they comment on Bishop Finn.
 
Julia_Mae said:
What was* his* sentence? The Bishop didn’t get any punishment for covering it up.
Click to expand...
There was no cover up. Their suspicions were reported to a captain on the Kansas City police force (who happened to be a parish council member). Since he was off duty at the time the court ruled that didn’t fullfill their duty to report.
 
SamH said:
There was no cover up. Their suspicions were reported to a captain on the Kansas City police force (who happened to be a parish council member). Since he was off duty at the time the court ruled that didn’t fullfill their duty to report.
Click to expand...
Apparently, after reviewing the photos that had been turned in to the chancery from the priest’s computer, this police captain said that while disturbing, they were not child pornography. Nevertheless, the priest was immediately suspended from any dealings with children.
 
JimG said:
Apparently, after reviewing the photos that had been turned in to the chancery from the priest’s computer, this police captain said that while disturbing, they were not child pornography.
Click to expand...
I guess its really true what they say about pornography.

Candidly, after reading the full text of the stipulation, I was most shocked by the inaction of diocesan legal counsel.

What was not surprising, and indeed commendable, was the consistent reaction and actions of the majority of lay staff members involved.
 
gus said:
Are you willing to push for the trial of mothers or fathers who turned a blind eye
For the removal of school principals
or are you only interested in helping out us Caatholics
Click to expand...
Read my first or second post on this thread. I went after those people too.

He knew what was going on and failed to act. Imagine if someone knew that your child was being sexually exploited and turned a blind eye to that. Would you cut him a break because he didn’t technically destroy documents and because he’s a member of the clergy?
 
creole54 said:
General consensus is yes, he’ll remain in his position. Our priest doesn’t think he’ll be removed.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but that’s just weird. He may have the ability to be a good Bishop but I’m sorry I want my Bishops squeaky clean, on the legal front at least.

Maybe some parking tickets but this? Come on. . . . .
 
gus said:
Are you willing to push for the trial of mothers or fathers who turned a blind eye
For the removal of school principals
Click to expand...
HECK YEAH!! When parents do this they are often found guilty of child neglect at least and aiding and abetting at times.

OMG I would hope that such a principal would be removed. I am a therapist and if I did this my license would be taken and I would never practice again. It’s common sense people.
 
ringil said:
It’s common sense people.
Click to expand...
That’s the key - its common sense. You would think that such cases would be investigated independently and thoroughly (yet fairly, of course), after all that we have learned.
 
catholicleague.org/assessing-bishop-finns-guilt/

A breakdown of the situation regarding Bishop Finn.
…The case did not involve child sexual abuse—no child was ever abused, or touched, in any way by Father Shawn Ratigan. Nor did this case involve child pornography. Here’s what happened.
Click to expand...
On December 16, 2010, a computer technician found crotch-shot pictures of children, fully clothed, on Ratigan’s computer; there was one that showed a girl’s genitals exposed. The next day Ratigan attempted suicide. The Vicar General, Msgr. Robert Murphy, without seeing the photos, contacted a police officer about this matter. The officer, after consulting with another cop, said a single photo of a non-sexual nature would not constitute pornography. After a few more of the same types of photos were found, an attorney rendered the same judgment: they were not pornographic.
Click to expand...
Finn then asked a psychiatrist to evaluate Ratigan. The bishop was given the judgment of a professional: the priest was not a risk to children (he was diagnosed as suffering from depression). Finn then placed restrictions on Ratigan, which he broke. When it was found that Ratigan was again using a computer, upon examination more disturbing photos were found. Murphy then called the cops (Finn was out of town) and a week later Ratigan was arrested. Yesterday, Finn was found guilty of one misdemeanor of failing to report suspected child sexual abuse…
Click to expand...
 
creole54 said:
I know I need to continue to pray for our bishop, but gosh…sometimes it’s hard to be sincere. 😦
Click to expand...
I should look this up exactly, but Jesus told Saint Faustina that there was huge merit in praying for someone even when you really didn’t feel like it but knew you should. I think we get to feel what we feel, might even make the prayer more powerful.
 
jwinch2 said:
catholicleague.org/assessing-bishop-finns-guilt/

A breakdown of the situation regarding Bishop Finn.
Click to expand...
I quoted this as it appears many posters have been misinformed about the facts of this case. I’m afraid much of the media has left out many important facts.

The Bishop did act, the Vicar General was the first person of authority to receive information concerning the pictures on the internet. As a previous poster, (SamH)
already stated, the suspicions were reported to a higher (captain?) police official, who consulted with another police official, and they told the Vicar General there was not enough evidence to bring a case.

Then an attorney was consulted, who said the photos would not be considered pornographic in a court of law. Ratigan was then required by the diocese to be examined by a psychiatrist, who diagnosed him as depressed. In spite of all these opinions, the Bishop forbid Ratigan from any contact with children, or from using the internet. Someone later found evidence Ratigan had again been on the internet, (as I recall he had photos on a flash drive) which the bishop turned over to authorities.

The biggest fault found with the bishops actions were not covering up evidence, nor turning a blind eye, it was the fact that he consulted with local off duty police, and NOT state officials. Hence, the misdemeanor. I believe Bishop Finn tried all along to do the right thing, and he has learned that you have to specifically contact the State, not local officials. The Bishop is a good man, and has really been a servant for all peoples of this diocese, he will learn from this and he has already done much to make sure the lines of communication between parishioners and church and government authorities are much improved.

May we all do better a better job of protecting Gods children…
 
KCSoul said:
I quoted this as it appears many posters have been misinformed about the facts of this case. I’m afraid much of the media has left out many important facts.

The Bishop did act, the Vicar General was the first person of authority to receive information concerning the pictures on the internet. As a previous poster, (SamH)
already stated, the suspicions were reported to a higher (captain?) police official, who consulted with another police official, and they told the Vicar General there was not enough evidence to bring a case.

Then an attorney was consulted, who said the photos would not be considered pornographic in a court of law. Ratigan was then required by the diocese to be examined by a psychiatrist, who diagnosed him as depressed. In spite of all these opinions, the Bishop forbid Ratigan from any contact with children, or from using the internet. Someone later found evidence Ratigan had again been on the internet, (as I recall he had photos on a flash drive) which the bishop turned over to authorities.

The biggest fault found with the bishops actions were not covering up evidence, nor turning a blind eye, it was the fact that he consulted with local off duty police, and NOT state officials. Hence, the misdemeanor. I believe Bishop Finn tried all along to do the right thing, and he has learned that you have to specifically contact the State, not local officials. The Bishop is a good man, and has really been a servant for all peoples of this diocese, he will learn from this and he has already done much to make sure the lines of communication between parishioners and church and government authorities are much improved.

May we all do better a better job of protecting Gods children…
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting this. I feel that the Bishop did not cover up anything. I would think though, that after contacting police that they would have told him he needed to contact state officials.The main problem is that people make big assumptions without knowing all the facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top