Bishop Finn, diocese indicted

  • Thread starter Thread starter HoraceX
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Negative and rude comments toward clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:
  • Vatican II
  • Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
  • Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
  • Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
  • Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
  • Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
  • Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Benedict XVI. He is fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.
Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.
 
What does one get when you cross a politician with a lawyer?

A District Attorney. This is not an insult at all, but a reminder that these people are subject to direct political pressure and as with all people in power are capable of dishonesty and corruption. Why would Catholics jump to the conclusion in cases like this that the bishop is the one who behaved improperly instead of a worldly politician? It is far better not to believe anything than believe the wrong thing. Time may shed some light on the truth. This should be our prayer; that the Truth will win the day.

Reading the news articles, something about this charge rings false with me. There are too many problems with this accusation.
 
bhktops said:
TO LANCER : What telling intell info? The police were called as soon as they received a concern. The police said it did not sound like pornography. Still, the Bishop removes the priest and puts him in isolation. Then the Bishop cooperates with the Government as a decision on a grand jury case is decided At this point the Bishop does not know about other kids, pictures or anything. Because he is a humble person and says he is sorry Everybody is sorry. Read the whole story than go tell him he has not a enough courage to call a duck a duck.
Click to expand...
/Q

The policeman who was on the diocesan committee for sexual abuse , was told of one picture that was not sexual in nature. The policeman said that didn’t sound like pornagraphy. One of the pictures was of a 2 to 3 year old female and did have a sexual nature. I understand how conflicted the bishop must be. But who would need more protection? The child or the priest? This is a mess.
 
pnewton said:
What does one get when you cross a politician with a lawyer?

A District Attorney. This is not an insult at all, but a reminder that these people are subject to direct political pressure and as with all people in power are capable of dishonesty and corruption. Why would Catholics jump to the conclusion in cases like this that the bishop is the one who behaved improperly instead of a worldly politician? It is far better not to believe anything than believe the wrong thing. Time may shed some light on the truth. This should be our prayer; that the Truth will win the day.

Reading the news articles, something about this charge rings false with me. There are too many problems with this accusation.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the principal would put this incident on the line if he/she were not convinced they were right in reporting the odd behavior of the priest. Once the accusation is made, doesn’t the DA have an obligation to go forward?
 
Pirate_Talker said:
I don’t think the principal would put this incident on the line if he/she were not convinced they were right in reporting the odd behavior of the priest. Once the accusation is made, doesn’t the DA have an obligation to go forward?
Click to expand...
Yes lets allow the justice system to go forward and run its course. As anp1215 said, “I truly hope the clergy involved are innocent, but if not, I hope they are brought to justice.”
 
Unlike some of the other bishops I have read about over the years (who shall remain unnamed here), I believe that Bishop Robert Finn is innocent of any deliberate wrongdoing. I do believe he should have turned over the images sooner, but I do not believe he was trying to let a practicing child rapist continue his actions.

And let those who would zealously prosecute the Church beware:
one day the tables ARE going to be turned.
As St. Paul put it, on the Last Day,
the members of the Church (clergy and laity) will even judge
the Angels Themselves.
So those worldly prosecutors who are out to vigorously stick it to Christ’s Church
should realize that one day it is they themselves whose sins will be judged
by the very Catholic Church, glorified, that they hate so much on Earth.
And they will be shown as much mercy as they have shown Christ’s church.
Not one iota more, not one iota less.
The children need to be, and must be protected,
but you had by God better be careful how you treat Christ’s Church on Earth.
They had better put aside ANY vindictive, worldly, antiCatholic agendas, and stick
strictly to the facts at hand and the issue at hand: the protection of little children from predators. If they or anybody else uses this sick tragedy as an excuse to carry out a long desired vendetta against the Catholic church, and it’s orthodox teachings, then be most solemnly assured that they will, most defintely will, suffer terrifying eternal consequences for it.
If you eat pope, you’ll die of it, the old saying goes. And it is true. 100% of the time.
Jaypeeto4
 
nytimes.com/2011/10/15/us/kansas-city-bishop-indicted-in-reporting-of-abuse-by-priest.html

The New York Times wasted no time in getting this relatively negative piece out.
Though the charge is only a misdemeanor, victims’ advocates immediately hailed the indictment as a breakthrough, saying that until now American bishops have avoided prosecution despite documents showing that in some cases they were aware of abuse.
Click to expand...
The implicit message being that the Bishops were guilty in a number of the previous cases.
 
Pirate_Talker said:
who would need more protection? The child or the priest?
Click to expand...
Considering that the priest had just tried to KILL himself, I think the *immediate *concern was for the life of the priest. As far as I know, the children involved were not in that kind of immediate danger. The bishop has a duty to look out for the welfare of his priests- even when those priests do bad things.

This should be a lesson for everyone. We need to spend more time in prayer for our priests and bishops. We need to make ourselves more available to them when they need help. We need to make a more concerted effort to grow in holiness. If we grow in our love for God, we will naturally grow in love for the priesthood and episcopacy. If we live as we should- offering our lives as a sacrifice to God and a model for humanity, others will also be sanctified (and the Church will have greater strength against those who are not).
 
Pirate_Talker said:
I don’t think the principal would put this incident on the line if he/she were not convinced they were right in reporting the odd behavior of the priest.
Click to expand...
Odd behavior is not reportable. Furthermore, the obligation to report any suspected abuse is the person who knows of it, in this case the educator
Once the accusation is made, doesn’t the DA have an obligation to go forward
Click to expand...
No. District attorney’s drop charges that or brought to them all the time. They have the full authority over what they will pursue and what they won’t. I am not saying in this case that the district attorney did the wrong thing, only that it is at least as likely that the DA is in the wrong as the bishop. Believe me, DA’s can be vindictive, irresponsible and retalitory. They do not all wear white hats.

I think what bothers me most about this case is the lack of victims, at least known to the bishop. The charges, and the evidence, or for child pornography, not indecency with a child. If I found pornographic pictures of women on a co-workers computer (God forbid) I think the last thing that would cross my mind is that he took these picture, or slept with those women. I simply do not see how the DA will make this case.
 
And the poor Bishop is in the front page of a local newspaper here in town.
 
While I have been hard in the past on the Bishops and how they handled the sex abuse scandal, I have to side with the Bishop on this one.

The facts seem to be that he did what was right. The Bishop’s ***intent ***was not criminal in the least.

The police Captain who did not file a report based on the conversation with the diocese about possible child porn on the computer should be indicted, too…
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
Unlike some of the other bishops I have read about over the years (who shall remain unnamed here), I believe that Bishop Robert Finn is innocent of any deliberate wrongdoing. I do believe he should have turned over the images sooner, but I do not believe he was trying to let a practicing child rapist continue his actions.

And let those who would zealously prosecute the Church beware:
one day the tables ARE going to be turned.
As St. Paul put it, on the Last Day,
the members of the Church (clergy and laity) will even judge
the Angels Themselves.
So those worldly prosecutors who are out to vigorously stick it to Christ’s Church
should realize that one day it is they themselves whose sins will be judged
by the very Catholic Church, glorified, that they hate so much on Earth.
And they will be shown as much mercy as they have shown Christ’s church.
Not one iota more, not one iota less.
The children need to be, and must be protected,
but you had by God better be careful how you treat Christ’s Church on Earth.
They had better put aside ANY vindictive, worldly, antiCatholic agendas, and stick
strictly to the facts at hand and the issue at hand: the protection of little children from predators. If they or anybody else uses this sick tragedy as an excuse to carry out a long desired vendetta against the Catholic church, and it’s orthodox teachings, then be most solemnly assured that they will, most defintely will, suffer terrifying eternal consequences for it.
If you eat pope, you’ll die of it, the old saying goes. And it is true. 100% of the time.
Jaypeeto4
Click to expand...
I appreciate your passion, but aren’t you sliding down a slippery slope to a logical error by assuming that some Catholics - priests, bishops etc.- are “the church”? I haven’t seen any prosecution of the Church; there have been prosecutions of men in the Church. The Church has survived in spite of many men who would have destroyed lesser institutions.
 
Taking suggestive/pornographic pictures of children is considered a form of child abuse. If my memory is correct, there is one girl, not sure if there is more or not.

I do not understand why the Bishop didn’t look into this further himself especially what the principal laid out in the long letter of concern. He entered a not guilty. But many questions remain.

Also, just last year, new Norms came out concerning abusive priests, eg this one which would apply:
Use of child pornography now falls under the category of clerical sexual abuse of minors, and offenders can be dismissed from the priesthood. This norm applies to “the acquisition, possession, or distribution by a cleric of pornographic images of minors under the age of 14, for purposes of sexual gratification, by whatever means or using whatever technology.” Vatican officials said age 14 was chosen as the threshold age into puberty; canon law considers a child under 14 as a “prepubescent.”
 
Hopey said:
Taking suggestive/pornographic pictures of children is considered a form of child abuse.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. However, photographers are not the only ones who vcan posses such materials. It can also shared over the internet with many people. Unless the bishop recognized one of the children, there would be no reason to assume the possessor is the photographer. Thus, the bishop would not be “knowingly” failing to report.
 
Possessing, taking, acquiring, sending child pornography is a crime. It is a civil crime and there are strong laws in our church regarding those priests/leaders who do this.

A person does have a duty to report it and depending on the state, they could receive a harsh penalty for failing to do this.

Also, Pope Benedict said not long ago that one can not automatically default to what the board declares regarding these abuse cases. Meaning, the Bishop can’t remove his responsibility in the matter.
 
Hopey said:
A person does have a duty to report it and depending on the state, they could receive a harsh penalty for failing to do this.
Click to expand...
I have been trying to find the Missouri law verifying this. Does a person have an obligation to report the crime of possession of child pornography there? I really don’t know and I might be applying local laws where one is required to report only cases of suspected child abuse.
 
pnewton said:
I have been trying to find the Missouri law verifying this. Does a person have an obligation to report the crime of possession of child pornography there? I really don’t know and I might be applying local laws where one is required to report only cases of suspected child abuse.
Click to expand...
The Church is not above the law, but neither is it below the law. . I would be interested to see how many times charges have been filed against any other employer because of allegedly pornographic images on one of their employees computers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top