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

[Farsight001]

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.

I didn’t say she wouldn’t rightfully feel. I’m looking at this in the eyes of the law. I’m talking about it in a legal aspect, not a “feelings” aspect.

 

[gigi4747]

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?

You don’t think it’s abusive to take naked photos of children?

 

[gigi4747]

Thank you, CorinneV and blue eyed lady, for all your excellent posts. How anyone can defend Robert Finn is beyond me.

 

[Farsight001]

Thank you, CorinneV and blue eyed lady, for all your excellent posts. How anyone can defend Robert Finn is beyond me.

No one is defending him. We’re just trying to point out that failure to report is not the shocking, satanic behavior the media is making it out to be. Was it wrong? Yes. A mistake? Yes. But failure to report actually happens all the time, because many people, including bishop Finn, did not realize that it was a situation in which they had that duty, or did not know what reporting officially entails.

We’re not defending him, but nor are we going to let people nail him to the wall over it as though he took the pictures himself, which is what is happening.

 

[Seeker1961]

No one is defending him. We’re just trying to point out that failure to report is not the shocking, satanic behavior the media is making it out to be. Was it wrong? Yes. A mistake? Yes. But failure to report actually happens all the time, because many people, including bishop Finn, did not realize that it was a situation in which they had that duty, or did not know what reporting officially entails.

We’re not defending him, but nor are we going to let people nail him to the wall over it as though he took the pictures himself, which is what is happening.

“in what I have done, and what I have FAILED TO DO”

There is no way I can defend or support ANYONE who failed to report abuse of a child. I don’t care what you thought your “duty” was, there is a higher level of duty that comes into play here. Please do not insult anyone’s intelligence by saying that there was a lack of knowledge of “what reporting officially entails.” YOU FIND OUT!!! YOU’RE AN ADULT!!!

Until the hierarchy and the faithful of the Catholic church wake up and stop excusing the behavior of these men who abused children and who turned the other way and allowed others to abuse children, we have ZERO credibility.

 

[Farsight001]

“in what I have done, and what I have FAILED TO DO”

There is no way I can defend or support ANYONE who failed to report abuse of a child. I don’t care what you thought your “duty” was, there is a higher level of duty that comes into play here. Please do not insult anyone’s intelligence by saying that there was a lack of knowledge of “what reporting officially entails.” YOU FIND OUT!!! YOU’RE AN ADULT!!!

Until the hierarchy and the faithful of the Catholic church wake up and stop excusing the behavior of these men who abused children and who turned the other way and allowed others to abuse children, we have ZERO credibility.

Once again, NO ONE is defending them or excusing their behavior. It would be helpful to the conversation if you would actually read what I wrote instead of angrily ranting and refusing to listen.

 

[gigi4747]

@ seeker’s post: exactly. If this had happened in say, the 1990s, it might have been understandable that Finn wouldn’t have known what to do (although I think even that’s being generous). But after the tsunami of revelations about sex crimes and cover ups, to have such a hands-off approach is inexcusable. No one is saying that Finn can’t be forgiven, we all can be, but he should have the humility and intelligence to step down. No one should have to CALL for his resignation. I’m disappointed that he didn’t get jail time. That might have sent a message to the next guy who thinks he can look the other way while children are at risk.

And then putting Ratigan with the Vincentian Fathers - how in the world does any adult man not know that you don’t simply tell a sexual predator, “Now, behave yourself and stay away from children, okay?”

Agreed with seeker too: this isn’t simply about what the law requires. I’d like to think that bishops are willing to hold themselves to a higher standard than simply staying one step ahead of the law.

 

[gigi4747]

No one is defending him. We’re just trying to point out that failure to report is not the shocking, satanic behavior the media is making it out to be.

And sorry, but please don’t complain about the media. The sex crimes and cover ups would probably not have been brought to light if not for them. If people intent on doing evil have infiltrated Christ’s Church, and their supervisors are willing to cover that evil up, then the media are doing faithful Catholics a favor by exposing that. Shame on priests and bishops if an outside entity is required to keep them honest.

 

[jwinch2]

“in what I have done, and what I have FAILED TO DO”

There is no way I can defend or support ANYONE who failed to report abuse of a child. I don’t care what you thought your “duty” was, there is a higher level of duty that comes into play here.

• On December 16, 2010 which is the exact same day the first of the photographs were originally discovered, a Captain in the Kansas City police department was notified. This police captain then notified and consulted a police sergeant who was more knowledgeable in the area.
• Later, more photographs were discovered. The agreed to testimony states that the diocesan staff believed that the pictures had been shown to the police, and they also sought legal counsel to determine what, if any, laws had been broken.
• Less than two weeks later, Bishop Finn had arranged for a psychological evaluation of the accused priest. This evaluation was completed by January 10, 2011 (less than a month following the initial discovery. The report indicated that the accused priest was not a thread and even suggest false accusations on the part of the school. However, the accused priest was prevented from having contact with children anyway and assigned in a position where this could be prevented.
• Later, it becomes aware that the second group of photos had not been shown to the police, and they were handed over. During this time, it also comes to light that the accused priest is not obeying the directives given regarding his contact with children, that he had been improperly seeking out the use of a computer, etc.

These facts are not in dispute.

Please understand, I am not suggesting things were done properly or should not have been done differently. I dearly wish better policies had been in place and that the Bishop had been more personally involved with some of what was going on, to include more regular communication with the police. However, the level that some on this thread are taking it to by suggesting an intended cover-up, is not remotely supported by the facts at hand which were agreed to by both parties in this legal issue.

 

[gigi4747]

On December 16, 2010 which is the exact same day the first of the photographs were originally discovered, a Captain in the Kansas City police department was notified. This police captain then notified and consulted a police sergeant who was more knowledgeable in the area.

You don’t think the laptop should have been turned over immediately to the police? What I can’t believe about this story is how many people - some of whom were mandated reporters - knew about these photos and did next to nothing about them. Also, the diocese also made no effort, according to the irb’s report, to identify any of the girls involved despite the fact that most of the photos seemed to have been taken by a personal camera. Finn was certainly not the only negligent person here. It’s hard to believe that Murphy’s inaction is not criminal too, but Finn is at the top of the chain of command. This mess happened on his watch. Was it a cover up? It was at the very least unbelievable negligence. Murphy’s testimony in the irb report is interesting too, ie, that Murphy thought Finn would be unhappy about the fact that Murphy had (FINALLY) been honest with the police, 5 months after the discovery of the photos.

*]Less than two weeks later, Bishop Finn had arranged for a psychological evaluation of the accused priest. This evaluation was completed by January 10, 2011 (less than a month following the initial discovery. The report indicated that the accused priest was not a thread and even suggest false accusations on the part of the school. However, the accused priest was prevented from having contact with children anyway and assigned in a position where this could be prevented.

Sorry, but this evaluation was by some joke Catholic psychologist chosen by Finn. The counselor or whatever he is states that a guy with pictures of naked children on his computer is not a risk to children and has an absurd theory about a school principal “orchestrating false accusations” against this priest. The theory is ridiculous enough in and of itself, but there was a letter in Ratigan’s personnel file from Principal Hess outlining MANY people’s concerns about how inappropriate Ratigan was and Finn had been told about these concerns by Murphy.

And actually Ratigan wasn’t placed somewhere that he wouldn’t be able to have contact with young people. Finn knew Ratigan could offer Masses for youth groups. He also of course was able to find a computer to access.

And the irb’s report is largely testimony. Not ALL of the report is facts that are beyond dispute.

 

[JimG]

Bill Donohue’s comment:

catholicleague.org/bishop-finn-and-the-catholic-left/

 

[gigi4747]

“But it also needs to be said that crotch shots are not pornographic.”

I feel nauseous reading this. So yeah, no need to turn the computer over to the police. Finn is the real victim here. And the criticism is coming from “the Catholic Left”? Right. I wear a chapel veil to Mass and am faithful to teachings of the Church. I don’t desire female priests, contraception, etc. Finn’s negligence is inexcusable, regardless of whether one is right or left ideologically.

 

[pnewton]

How anyone can defend Robert Finn is beyond me.

I will neither defend him or grab my pitchfork.

I have no issue taking up the cause against those who sexually molest children. I will let those that prefer to go after someone’s misjudgment in reporting matters to their own devices. After all, you will be judged by the measure that you judge others, and that judge does not follow politics.

 

[jwinch2]

You don’t think the laptop should have been turned over immediately to the police?

I have already said I wished it was handled differently. All I am suggesting is that the claim of some sort of plan to cover things up or suggesting that no one was told, is highly inaccurate. Police were informed immediately.

 

[Farsight001]

“But it also needs to be said that crotch shots are not pornographic.”

I feel nauseous reading this. So yeah, no need to turn the computer over to the police. Finn is the real victim here. And the criticism is coming from “the Catholic Left”? Right. I wear a chapel veil to Mass and am faithful to teachings of the Church. I don’t desire female priests, contraception, etc. Finn’s negligence is inexcusable, regardless of whether one is right or left ideologically.

You feel nauseous reading a statement that is technically true?

No one said it shouldn’t have been turned over to the police or that Finn was the real victim. Quit putting words in peoples’ mouths. Your reaction to what we are saying is ludicrously over the top emotional, constantly insinuating that we meant things that not a single person said or implied.

 

[JimG]

Here are some National Catholic Register articles concerning the matter:

ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-naumann-on-the-indictment-of-bishop-finn/

ncregister.com/site/article/bishop-finn-convicted/

ncregister.com/daily-news/bishop-finn

 

[gigi4747]

I will neither defend him or grab my pitchfork.

I have no issue taking up the cause against those who sexually molest children. I will let those that prefer to go after someone’s misjudgment in reporting matters to their own devices. After all, you will be judged by the measure that you judge others, and that judge does not follow politics.

As I said, Finn can be forgiven, as we hopefully all will be. He should have the humility, however, to step down. His hands-off, see no evil “misjudgment” put children in jeopardy and further squandered the credibility of the Catholic clergy. It’s not “judging” someone to expect that he or she will hold themselves accountable to certain standards.

 

[Dwyer]

I wonder why this muilti-billionaire isn’t charged with attempted rape and numerous counts of criminal sexual conduct by law enforcement? :idea:

It made the front page section in Michigan local media but not much coverage nationally (they didn’t show his photo though).

The suit alleges that on numerous occasions, (A. Alfred) Taubman seized Rock’s head and neck to coerce her into a kiss, forced his hands in her dress, grabbed her crotch, tore a hole in the crotch of her pantyhose and engaged in attempts for other unlawful sexual behavior. The suit refers to one particular instance in which Taubman pushed Rock on a bed in the rear cabin of a plane intending to perform oral sex on her, screaming “I said lay down.”

michigandaily.com/news/11taubman-sued-sexual-harassment-other-allegations30

 

[gigi4747]

No one said it shouldn’t have been turned over to the police or that Finn was the real victim. Quit putting words in peoples’ mouths. Your reaction to what we are saying is ludicrously over the top emotional, constantly insinuating that we meant things that not a single person said or implied.

Read the Catholic League link. Bill Donohue isn’t saying Finn is a victim? He says that there has been an “attack” on Finn from the Catholic Left and that they have been trying to “unseat him.” My posts have drawn on what other posters have said and what is in the testimony in the link provided. I haven’t “put words” in anyone’s mouth.

 

[JimG]

Read the Catholic League link. Bill Donohue isn’t saying Finn is a victim? He says that there has been an “attack” on Finn from the Catholic Left and that they have been trying to “unseat him.” My posts have drawn on what other posters have said and what is in the testimony in the link provided. I haven’t “put words” in anyone’s mouth.

Also read Bill Donohue earlier article about Bishop Finn, here:
catholicleague.org/assessing-bishop-finns-guilt/

I don’t think that Bill Donohue is advocating for any cover-up by Church officials, particularly since in this case there was no cover up. It was the Diocese who reported the priest to the prosecutor.

At the same time, Donohue is correct that many people in the Kansas City area did not like Bishop Finn ever since his appointment, because he was seen as too traditionalist, too ‘conservative,’ too orthodox. I have no doubt that had Bishop Finn been a cleric more in the mold of someone approved of by groups such as “Catholics United” or been a favorite of the National Catholic Reporter, this matter would have received much less attention by the media, and by the Kansas City Star, which has treated it as if it were a renewal of the Spanish Inquisition.