Bishop Finn, diocese indicted

[Hopey]

There is a current hyperphobia abroad as the result of child sexual abuse. Any hint of impropriety gets a guilty verdict in the court of public opinion. The public opinion has now reached the point that possession of pictures in a book or on a computer can be a felony. Isn’t this just a modern version of banned books and book burning that civil libertarians have decried over the centuries? While I think child pornography is abhorrent, (I think all pornography is abhorrent,) isn’t it a little scary that the police can arrest someone and have them sent to prison for having photographs, regardless how offensive? Isn’t it even scarier that this bishop can be charged with a crime for failing to report that a priest had certain photographs or videos, or whatever? Is this a slippery slope to censorship on a wider scale? I hope not, but . . .

Although it isn’t against the rule of the land to possess pornography, what is against the law, and rightly so, is child pornography.
In this case, the priest was using children to create his own pornography, via upshot of children’s skirts, to manipulating sleeping children to using a toddler.
That is against the law and should be. It is also a grave offense in the Church which could land him lacitized quickly.

Now, say what the man had was adult pornography and he was creating his own, via women/men of his parish. I don’t think that would land him in jail, but he would be in trouble with the church if not outright dismissed. *But if he were using adults in the same manner and photographing them in intimate situations or up lady’s skirts, while they were in the bathroom, etc, he would still be and should be taken to court as it is a crime also. Should the Bishop turn those in OR AT LEAST FIND OUT IF THEY WERE TAKEN BY HIM…YES. If he is able to, that is.

What they are doing is not unfair nor unjustly censoring someone’s freedom of speech. The man was a predator. His prey were children. He has been caught.

 

[kmaaj]

According to the timeline of events, the monsignor under Bishop Finn verbally relayed information about the worst photo to a member of law enforcement, and then to legal counsel, and was advised that the images, while disturbing, did not constitute “child pornography”. Fr. Ratigan was then called to report to the diocese, and that is when the suicide attempt happened. After Ratigan’s recovery, Bishop Finn re-assigned Fr. Ratigan to a monastery and restricted Ratigan’s access to children, computers, and cameras. Fr. Ratigan violated those restrictions, and that is when images that -did- constitute “child pornography” surfaced, at which point, the diocese reported it.

Both the SNAP publicists and the media is ignoring this timeline, proving they are not interested in the truth. I have been vilified on editorial blog for the KC Star for simply pointing out pertinent details that SNAP and the Star leave out. I have also been censored and banned from SNAP’s blog for the same.

The elephant standing in the corner that EVERYONE is ignoring is the simple fact that had Fr. Ratigan obeyed his bishop, we are not talking about this. Roast me if you want for thinking this, but that would have been the better outcome for everyone.

 

[pnewton]

What they are doing is not unfair nor unjustly censoring someone’s freedom of speech. The man was a predator. His prey were children. He has been caught.

If the evidence is as the media says it is, he should be prosecuted. This thread, however, is about the bishop, who did none of the things you mentioned. No one, including the bishop, is trying to protect someone who is abusing children. As you point out, it is Fr. Ratigan that should be the foucs of the full force of the law.

 

[Hopey]

If the evidence is as the media says it is, he should be prosecuted. This thread, however, is about the bishop, who did none of the things you mentioned. No one, including the bishop, is trying to protect someone who is abusing children. As you point out, it is Fr. Ratigan that should be the foucs of the full force of the law.

Ok. A misdemeanor is not the same as what Fr. Ratigan will receive.

Who was supposed to turn Ratigan in so the full force of the law can be upheld? Let’s assume that Ratigan didn’t want to do that himself. Whose responsibility when in Dec of 10, they had, on the day of his attempted suicide, proof of abuse? Assuming that using children, taking pictures of them in the nude, is abuse?

Here is the Independent Report of the KC Diocese.
diocese-kcsj.org/_docs/8-31-11_Report_of_Independent_Investigation.pdf

Notice that those who supposedly were saying this doesn’t constitute pornography, are now saying they never really looked at it, or weren’t contacted, etc.

 

[kmaaj]

Ok. A misdemeanor is not the same as what Fr. Ratigan will receive.

Like it or not, Ratigan is an American. And as an American, he is innocent until proven guilty. He is yet to be proven guilty. Same goes for the bishop. Anything less is mob mentality that our constitution was designed to prevent.

 

[Hopey]

I am pretty sure that the Church has found him (Ratigan) guilty, have they not? You are right, his trial has not started so technically he has not been found guilty by them, locally.

Just this one quote from a parent is damaging enough:
“The images of my daughter’s private areas that the FBI showed me, they are
forever burned into my brain. … Shawn Ratigan was in my house, around my
children in February, and I thought my children were completely SAFE!!”
“You let one of your priests hurt my children and you saw the pictures and
decided to cover it up. That monster was in my house in February 11’ to prey on
my children and I let him in, since you felt you were above the law and made that
decision not to turn in photos of my kids.”

As for the Bishop, he has plead not guilty.

 

[pnewton]

Who was supposed to turn Ratigan in so the full force of the law can be upheld?

Here is the Independent Report of the KC Diocese.
diocese-kcsj.org/_docs/8-31-11_Report_of_Independent_Investigation.pdf

Anyone who had knowledge that a child is being abused is supposed to turn in the abuser. I am reading through that report. So far, I noticed that they say the Bishop knew only of the first picture and the steps taken, which is why he restricted the priest. They recommend that the work that was being done by the Monsignor be changed to a response team that would make inquiries and then act if needed.

I see nothing in the report that would make the bishop criminally liable. In fact, since there was another who handled the response for the bishop, I find it significant that the DA by-passed the one who would have primary knowledge of the outcome of an investigation so that they could indict a bishop. This suggests that the DA’s move is more political than substantial.

 

[pnewton]

Great link up there, that independent report. The incident details with Fr. Ratigan occurs around page 90 or so and is about twenty pages long. I am confident that Bp. Finn will prevail in this matter. For those that do not wish to read all of that, at least two techs worked on the laptop. The pictures were said to have been downloaded. The one flaw the bishop made, according to the report, is that he failed to understand that someone who is a pedophile can not be controlled by restrictions that are not monitored real closely. If all the pictures were off the internet, as one tech said, then I still think the actions of the diocese, though slow, may have prevented a pedophile from taking the next step to sexual assault of children.

One thing the report noted is that this was the Bishop’s first case like this. Oh, this incident was reported to the police. That is how they found out about the pornography.

As this is an independent report and examines the actions of the diocese critically, I am now in total support of the Bishop’s actions, and of the Monsignor’s as well. I may change my opinion if new evidence comes to light, but for now, the charge against the Bishop looks like a McCarthy-style commie-hunt.

 

[pnewton]

I will add one more recommendation to the DA and the police. If you want cooperation, prosecuting people when they report something and cooperate with you is **not **the way to encourage reporting.

 

[ringil]

There is a current hyperphobia abroad as the result of child sexual abuse. Any hint of impropriety gets a guilty verdict in the court of public opinion. The public opinion has now reached the point that possession of pictures in a book or on a computer can be a felony. Isn’t this just a modern version of banned books and book burning that civil libertarians have decried over the centuries? While I think child pornography is abhorrent, (I think all pornography is abhorrent,) isn’t it a little scary that the police can arrest someone and have them sent to prison for having photographs, regardless how offensive? Isn’t it even scarier that this bishop can be charged with a crime for failing to report that a priest had certain photographs or videos, or whatever? Is this a slippery slope to censorship on a wider scale? I hope not, but . . .

No it’s not a version of “banned books”. It’s adressing the most depraved violation of the rights of those who can’t speak for themselves.

I don’t find it scary at all that the police can arrest and detain an individual for possessing child pornography. It is the function of police in a properly functioning society. I dont own child pornography. I don’t even know were they get this garbage. They have to SEEK it out!! They deserve stern treatment indeed and treatment to deal with their affliction.

If this Bishop didn’t follow legal norms of a most basic nature- made crystal clear in the newest reforms in the Bishop’s policies to address clerical sex abuse then he should be charged. Indeed, I feel that Bishops have gotten off WAY too easily in the whole sordid affair passing along complete blaim to the guilty priests. The Bishops should carry some fraction of responsibility in these matters, especially if children are knowingly placed at risk- in the cross-hairs of predators.

Let me close by saying that we certainly don’t have sufficient information to give a judgement on Bishop Finn at this time. Time will tell in this matter.

We shouldn’t rush to judgement, but follow a clear-headed and detailed assessment of the matter.

 

[kmaaj]

This suggests that the DA’s move is more political than substantial.

Did I mention that the DA 1) has close ties to SNAP, 2) has close ties to pro choice causes, and 3) is a Sunday school teacher at a rabidly anti catholic church?

 

[Hopey]

We have likewise gone thru a time where men of the cloth were respected and so revered that one would almost NEVER bring charges against them, police even. Although they may have raped children.

If I know you are required to turn in even anything that resembles child pornography, why didn’t they?

I think the good people in Kansas need to know they can go directly to the police themselves.

The DA thinks there was a delay. The Bishop has said Not Guilty. The DA is not the judge nor the jury IF that is what the Bishop chooses. The max fine would be $1,000 fine and/or year in prison.

Praying for all involved.

 

[ByzCath08]

The whole thing is troubling. If the Diocese knew that there was truly child pornography on the computer and failed to report it, that is wrong on many accounts and could possible rise to a criminal level.

However, as someone who has worked child pornography cases, unless the image is explicit, graphic and focuses on the nude genitalia, it is not child pornography. As repulsive as child erotica, partially clothed pictures, etc are, they are not legally child pornography. And lets not forget that reports say the diocese did make contact with a police officer who provided his advise.

Let Bishop Finn have his day in court where ALL of the evidence can be presented before rushing to any judgement. If the evidence shows that the actual CP image was on the computer in December when they first heard of the inappropriate images and failed to report, than they are guilty. If the images came onto the computer after that date, they are not guilty.

Unfortunately the reality is that a guilty verdict will have people saying see, they haven’t changed. A not guilty verdict will bring out those saying, every is still covering it up. As someone who serves on an Eparchy Safe Environments board, I can say that we do a better job protecting children than the local school system.

Pray for all involved.

 

[Hopey]

ByzCath,
Unfortunately according to the Diocese own independent study, the only contacting police that occurred, was when Msgr briefly described a photo to a police officer who also was a member of the board.

Everyone involved thought or seemed to think the police had been contacted too. The Bishop was surprised when the Msgr did finally call (May of this year I think) because he thought that had been taken care of.

There was in fact what you described on the computer. This was taken by the priest himself of a girl in the parish. There were others (up shot of children skirts, etc).

No one even tried to identify any victims of them at that time.

The computer was destroyed by a family member but the diocese luckily kept a copy on flash drive.

It seems to be an unfortunate case of everyone thinking someone else had taken care of it. That IT being Msgr.

When the priest refused to stop being around children, is only when Msgr suspected some may be abused (children).

It is all very sad.

 

[OriginalJS]

Although it isn’t against the rule of the land to possess pornography, what is against the law, and rightly so, is child pornography.
In this case, the priest was using children to create his own pornography, via upshot of children’s skirts, to manipulating sleeping children to using a toddler.
That is against the law and should be. It is also a grave offense in the Church which could land him lacitized quickly.

Now, say what the man had was adult pornography and he was creating his own, via women/men of his parish. I don’t think that would land him in jail, but he would be in trouble with the church if not outright dismissed. *But if he were using adults in the same manner and photographing them in intimate situations or up lady’s skirts, while they were in the bathroom, etc, he would still be and should be taken to court as it is a crime also. Should the Bishop turn those in OR AT LEAST FIND OUT IF THEY WERE TAKEN BY HIM…YES. If he is able to, that is.

What they are doing is not unfair nor unjustly censoring someone’s freedom of speech. The man was a predator. His prey were children. He has been caught.

I agree completely on these facts.

 

[pnewton]

ByzCath,
Unfortunately according to the Diocese own independent study, the only contacting police that occurred, was when Msgr briefly described a photo to a police officer who also was a member of the board.

The Monsignor Murphy also contacted Catptain Smith on May 11, 2011, and gave him the details of what had developed, He also had a copy of the drive made, which was given to police. (pg. 108-110). It was this contact, this information passed on to police that led to the arrest of Fr. Ratigan.

This incident is being treated in the media like it was a cover-up from the mistakes of twenty years ago. The fact is, the police have no evidence that was not provided by the diocese, even though at least two technicians also saw the images and did not report them. In fact, there is no evidence, according to the report, that the Bishop ever saw the images, especially the one(s) that was pornographic. Yet the bishop alone is singled out for this dishonor of failing to report… something.

It should also be noted that all the disciplinary action taken against Fr. Ratigan by the bishop was not for abusing children, but what was considered boundry violations. These type of violations are often (not always) a precursor to child abuse. All Catholics should be aware for these boundries and bold in reporting them. This is the single most important lesson we can take from this.

Priests that have a genuine love for children untainted by ulterior motives must be understanding that the importance of these guidelines. Had the bishop and the monsignor had a better understanding of evil people (I am glad they don’t), they might have recognized this protestation by Fr. Ratigan. The report emphasizes the failure of the diocese to use a response team. Good people in places of authority need to understand their potential blind spot and utilize those more familiar with the dark side of human nature in dealing with wolves in sheep’s clothing.

 

[Hopey]

It was given to the police NOT when it was discovered in Dec 10, but in May of this year and only AFTER the Msgr realized the priest would not stop his contact with children.

It does seem to indicate that the Bishop had not seen the pictures. But does that negate all responsibility of making sure it is handled properly? I am not sure.

I also do not agree that it is a good thing for these Bishops to remain naive as to the depravity and horror of priest who prey upon children/people. None are so blind as those who choose not to see.

 

[Hopey]

AND, had it been turned over to the police, it would have been determined by them that it was in fact child pornography.

Had it been handled correctly, they would have seen it wasn’t JUST boundary violations.:sad_yes:

They also would/should have tried to determine who the victims were then, and not later especially after he had the chance to be with the families again.

 

[pnewton]

It was given to the police NOT when it was discovered in Dec 10, but in May of this year and only AFTER the Msgr realized the priest would not stop his contact with children.

No, this was done after they realized that it constituted child pornography.

It does seem to indicate that the Bishop had not seen the pictures. But does that negate all responsibility of making sure it is handled properly?

It does not negate any of his responsibility. However, it does mean that he does not meet the standard set by law of being criminally liable, if this turns out to be true. Basically, the prosecution (if they don’t drop charges) will have to prove the independent report faulty.
I also do not agree that it is a good thing for these Bishops to remain naive as to the

AND, had it been turned over to the police, it would have been determined by them that it was in fact child pornography.

It WAS turned over to the police. That is how they got it.

Had it been handled correctly, they would have seen it wasn’t JUST boundary violations.:sad_yes:

Those violations contained nothing the least bit criminal. They were nothing but violations of diocesan policies.

They also would/should have tried to determine who the victims were then, and not later especially after he had the chance to be with the families again.

I think it is a good point that the actions taken to discipline the priest did not have enough supervision to make sure he did not have contact with children. As far as the victims, the pornography, according to the technician who uploaded them, were from internet files. I believe this is all the information they had in December of 2010. The timeline here is critical, as I am sure the defense willl make clear.

I also do not agree that it is a good thing for these Bishops to remain naive as to the depravity and horror of priest who prey upon children/people.

I thought about this statement, and I understand where you are coming from. However, while knowledge can be gained through training (everyone has had a ton of training on this), real understanding comes through experience. The last thing I want is any more bishops that have come through the cauldron of many abusive priests just so they have a better understanding. Loss of innocence comes at a high price and is never worth it. In this instance, mild though it may be compared to the scandal of the nineties, will still prove a regretable education to the bishop and Monsignor Murphy. Better that it never occurred. At least they did not just sweep it under the rug.

 

[Hopey]

Pnewton,
They were not just downloaded or the one parent would not have been outraged by the photographs of her daughters private areas the FBI showed her.

The many pictures were NOT turned into the police when they were discovered. A police officer was consulted, but he did not know there were many, etc or the complete extent.

It is not good for the Bishops to remain naive imo. If they do, the same things could happen over and over.