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

[jwinch2]

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.

I agree. If the reports are accurate, it seems to me that Bishop Finn, and those acting in his name, acted in good conscience.

It seems perfectly logical to me that they might contact a police officer that they know, particularly a high ranking one like a captain, to seek guidance on how best to proceed. That captain consulted with another police officer, presumably one who is knowledgeable in that area (otherwise why bring that particular cop in?).

Its not like they tried to hide anything or cover it up.

 

[kmaaj]

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.

That very same captain also relayed the concern to a police sergeant that was on duty. Off duty or not, their code of ethics mandates an investigation and both qualified as “mandated reporters”. How the court and the prosecution missed that is beyond me.

 

[gus]

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.

What exactly have you done to stop child abuse.Child
Did you protest the Vagina Monologues were it was performed.
which romamanitizes the abuse of a 12 year old girl by a lesbian. Oh that was free speech.
I sorry but your hypocrcy
and elective handring do nothing for any children.
If your Catholic have you volunteered for training or better yet to be the officer in charge of preventing abuse in your parish.
Since I can’t speek for any non Catholic groups I don’t no what is offered. but I’m. sure the mainline groups have something.
Since abuse never happens among atheists what you
could do is. zdemand planned. Parenthood identify the
father of pregrent underage incest or abuse. Victims in their care.
Have your children gone through training to teach them how to avoid situations were abuse could occur.
Every Catholic parish offers it

If they don’t then demand that they do.
Have you participated as a trainer
Have you ever suspected abuse but were afraid to make waves
Are you really part of the solution.?

 

[ringil]

Have you ever suspected abuse but were afraid to make waves
Are you really part of the solution.?

The two times I suspected abuse in my practice as a social worker I reported it within 15 minutes. No I’ve never been afraid to “make waves”.

The rest of your post is, really rather confusing and a bit disjointed.

 

[kmaaj]

I agree. If the reports are accurate, it seems to me that Bishop Finn, and those acting in his name, acted in good conscience.

It seems perfectly logical to me that they might contact a police officer that they know, particularly a high ranking one like a captain, to seek guidance on how best to proceed. That captain consulted with another police officer, presumably one who is knowledgeable in that area (otherwise why bring that particular cop in?).

Its not like they tried to hide anything or cover it up.

Everybody involved knew that the photos on the laptop were disturbing. What they did not know is if the photos on the laptop were prosecutable as child pornography. That is the reason that they consulted with police officers (PLURAL!) and legal counsel.

Everything that the bishop did between December of 2010 and May of 2011 was done with the notion that authorities WERE contacted and that they had declined to investigate. This was based on info given to him by his 2nd in command. What the judge was basically saying is that the bishop should have contacted authorities himself, anyway.

 

[CorinneV]

As a mom and grandma, I find that Bishop Finn and Mosgr Murphy’s reactions in this case give me the creeps. Disturbing photos of very young children, too young to speak up for themselves, are found, and NO ONE wants to investigate to find out how the children have been harmed??
The reaction of the the middle managers at the diocese was, “Call the police!” The reaction of the leadership was, “Technically, we don’t have to, so we won’t. And we won’t investigate internally, either”.
The bishops need to continue to study and educate THEMSELVES about protection of little kids. This is very sad, and outrageous.
I pray for the Bishop, and I hope he becomes a leader to demand a new regard for the protection of innocents. :

 

[jwinch2]

As a mom and grandma, I find that Bishop Finn and Mosgr Murphy’s reactions in this case give me the creeps. Disturbing photos of very young children, too young to speak up for themselves, are found, and NO ONE wants to investigate to find out how the children have been harmed??
The reaction of the the middle managers at the diocese was, “Call the police!” The reaction of the leadership was, “Technically, we don’t have to, so we won’t. And we won’t investigate internally, either”.
The bishops need to continue to study and educate THEMSELVES about protection of little kids. This is very sad, and outrageous.
I pray for the Bishop, and I hope he becomes a leader to demand a new regard for the protection of innocents. :

I am just as outraged about child abuse as you are, and just as disturbed as anyone when the Church is involved.

However, your statement makes it obvious that you have not read the facts of this case at all. The very first thing which was done by the diocese was to consult a police officer.

 

[Farsight001]

Maybe I’m missing something, but I attend the parish Ratigan used to be at. I know several people who work at the chancery. We talk about this issue regularly. I don’t recall a single case of abuse. Taking inappropriate photos, yes. But last I checked, not a single child was touched. So how do they call it abuse?

 

[CorinneV]

I am writing in response to Jason:
I have read the article in the Kansas City Star. It states that the monsignor who called the police officer merely described one photograph. He withheld the information that there were other pictures, that they were found on a computer, that the computer belonged to a parish priest, that the pictures were not voluntarily presented by the priest, that the pictures were found while the computer was being serviced, that there had been complaints from the parish regarding the priest’s behavior around young children, and that the priest had already been reprimanded about his behavior around young children. These are all relevant facts that would have effected the police officer’s response on the photograph. This is all information that the monsignor had, which he chose to withhold from the police officer. This information was not presented to the diocesan review board for review. Instead, the monsignor chose to select one specific bit of informationm and ask one specific question about it.
The monsignor, under the supervision of Bishop Finn, failed to follow the diocese’s own policy regarding questionable events relative to contact with children. He should be convicted, too.
What an insult to the good priests of that diocese.

 

[CorinneV]

Dear Farsight,
Yes, you are certainly missing something. Sexual abuse is not limited to physical contact. Abuse of children is not limited to physical contact.
I will give you an illustration that will clarify this for you:
Imagine you are a woman seated at a table during a parish event. Father Ratigan approaches you, lifts your skirt and snaps a picture. Surely you can see that this is abuse, in fact this is an assault.
I hope you can see what I am trying to say.

 

[CorinneV]

I want to correct one item in my reply to Jason, see email above. I am basing my discussion on the Bishop’s stipulation of facts.
I will add that, in reviewing the stipulation, I believe that the Bishop’s focus was spiritual care for a priest in the Bishop’s care. He was concerned with the holiness of Ratigan’s priesthood. Unfortunately, Ratigan is not a spiriutally troubled priest, he is a CRIMINAL. I think it is difficult for some people to see that a close friend (which is how the Bishop probably views the priests of his diocese) is actually a lying cheating nasty criminal.

 

[Farsight001]

Dear Farsight,
Yes, you are certainly missing something. Sexual abuse is not limited to physical contact. Abuse of children is not limited to physical contact.
I will give you an illustration that will clarify this for you:
Imagine you are a woman seated at a table during a parish event. Father Ratigan approaches you, lifts your skirt and snaps a picture. Surely you can see that this is abuse, in fact this is an assault.
I hope you can see what I am trying to say.

It’s certainly illegal, yes. But sexual abuse? No. Sexual abuse requires physical contact with sexual organs. And your analogy doesn’t exactly work because in your analogy, there was touching, while I don’t recall anything about him actually touching any of these kids.

 

[HoraceX]

It’s certainly illegal, yes. But sexual abuse? No. Sexual abuse requires physical contact with sexual organs. And your analogy doesn’t exactly work because in your analogy, there was touching, while I don’t recall anything about him actually touching any of these kids.

Here’s the law:

Mo. Rev. Stat. 210.115.

1. When any … minister … has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been or may be subjected to 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

---

Here are some portions of the stipulation of facts:

1. __________ informed Finn that ______________ had concerns regarding boundaries. Finn testified that in May, 2010, ______________ spoke with him about _____________'s concerns. Finn indicated that he perceived them as “boundary issues.”
2. On December 16, 2010, ____________________, a _______________________ contracted by _______________'s Parish, examined a laptop owned by Ratigan due to his complaints of sluggish performance. _______________ observed alarming pictures of children on this laptop, including a close up photograph of a little girl’s naked vagina.
3. ___________________, the ________________________ for the Diocese, examined the laptop on December 16 and 17, 2010. During her examination she found hundreds of photographs characterized as up-skirt photographs or photographs focused on little girls’ crotches. Many of the photographs appear to be taken while little girls were crawling on playground equipment, under tables or in one case while a little girl was asleep with her hand and pajama bottoms appearing staged in a sexually suggestive manner. Many of the photographs were close ups of only the child’s crotch/panties, with no visible facial features.
4. On December 16, 2010, ____________ observed eight photographs focusing on a little girl’s vaginal area with the panties being moved further aside in each photograph, with the final photograph depicting a naked vagina. Also discovered in this location was a photograph of a child’s bare bottom and a photograph of a littlie girl. _____________________ made the assumption that the vaginal photographs and the photograph of the bottom were of the same girl.
5. The ___________________ report noted that only four or five of the hundreds of photographs appeared to be downloaded, the rest appeared to have been taken with a personal camera.
6. ______________ recalled describing the nature and content of the photographs to Finn. Finn recalled being told by ______________ there were a couple of similar images where the face was not visible. It was an infant female maybe 2 - 4 years old, naked, with the focus on the genitalia.
7. No effort was made by any employee or agent of the Diocese to determine the identity of the children depicted in the hundreds of photographs.
8. On January 19, 2011, Finn sent an email to ______________________. Finn indicates that he has been informed that Ratigan has been using his Facebook page to communicate with young people. Finn also indicates that _______________________ attempted to reach Ratigan and ask him to refrain from these social media. The email is signed “+Bishop Finn.”
9. On April 8, 2011, ___________________, the ________________ of the Diocese, sent an email to Finn regarding Ratigan. ___________________ expressed concern that “Father Ratigan’s attendance at a young girl’s party and alleged participation on Facebook sites … is an alarming occurrence.” ________________ suggested “plainly something needs to be done to limit diocesan liability and protect children.” ______________ further stated that “his recent behavior relative to children and on the computer are a flag of the reddest color.”

 

[seekerz]

It’s certainly illegal, yes. But sexual abuse? No. Sexual abuse requires physical contact with sexual organs. And your analogy doesn’t exactly work because in your analogy, there was touching, while I don’t recall anything about him actually touching any of these kids.

Does it really matter if he touched them or not? Legally perhaps, but morally, spiritually? Just just entertaining sexual desires regarding this kids is all it takes to make this seriously sinful - one doesn’t have to actually sit at the computer, far less to approach and touch them.

 

[Farsight001]

Does it really matter if he touched them or not? Legally perhaps, but morally, spiritually? Just just entertaining sexual desires regarding this kids is all it takes to make this seriously sinful - one doesn’t have to actually sit at the computer, far less to approach and touch them.

Spiritually, no. But I’m finding it hard to understand how Finn was found guilty of failing to report sexual abuse when all he was aware of was inappropriate photos, and not any actual abuse.

 

[partypilot1]

Does it really matter if he touched them or not? Legally perhaps, but morally, spiritually? Just just entertaining sexual desires regarding this kids is all it takes to make this seriously sinful - one doesn’t have to actually sit at the computer, far less to approach and touch them.

Yes, facts matter. We all are tasked with seeking justice. Only laws that were broken should a man be tried for. Seeking justice for laws not-yet broken or almost broken is a great perversion of the legal system

 

[seekerz]

Spiritually, no. But I’m finding it hard to understand how Finn was found guilty of failing to report sexual abuse when all he was aware of was inappropriate photos, and not any actual abuse.

Any kid who has a photo taken of a sexual nature, has been abused by the very act of being made to pose for it. If a person is aware of the photo, then they are aware of the abuse.

 

[seekerz]

Yes, facts matter. We all are tasked with seeking justice. Only laws that were broken should a man be tried for. Seeking justice for laws not-yet broken or almost broken is a great perversion of the legal system

Justice has already been rendered, to my understanding. I don’t know the law well enough to comment on what is or is not technically termed sexual abuse. I do know, from a commonsense perspective (call it moral, spiritual…) that being aware of child porn is equivalent to being aware of child sexual abuse.

 

[CorinneV]

To Farsight,
No, my example is not inaccurate. If Ratigan took a picture of a woman’s crotch,withour her permissions, whether he actually touched her or not, she would rightfully feel that she was abused, disrespected, exploited, humiliated, criminally assaulted, whatever other nasty description you can think of.
It is obvious that the newpsaper article uses the term “child abuse” in the more general sense, meaning harming a child in any way, including exploitation by taking dirty pictures of the child. Ratigan was convicted of producing child pornography, which is just one way to harm a child.
This is such a shame that other priests have to put up with this stuff.

 

[Corki]

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…

This is such a hard story. I believe Bishop Finn was trying hard to get this priest turned in but was told that he didn’t have enough to go on yet. In the current climate, Bishops and priests have to be very careful of false accusations on top of everything else. Even without enough initial evidence, Bishop Finn removed the priest from his immediate duties, sent him for professional evaluation and put him under much tighter scrutiny, the result being that more evidence was uncovered. It’s not a matter of covering up or turning a blind eye but rather that what he did was seen in hindsight to have not been enough.