Bishop Finn, diocese indicted

  • Thread starter Thread starter HoraceX
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, here is the quote I am referring to from their own Independent study which indicates to me, the priest was producing his own images/child pornography:

“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.”
 
Hopey said:
Again, here is the quote I am referring to from their own Independent study which indicates to me, the priest was producing his own images/child pornography:
Click to expand...
Yes, it does seem so. The quotes you gave were from May 2011, after the report was made and Fr. Ratigan arrested. When I said the technician said they had been downloaded from the internet, that too is true. People have to base decisions on knowledge they have, not knowledge they will have. Non-technical people rely on those who know computers to tell them what they do not know. I think it is also of interest that Dr. Fitzgibbons who evaluated the priest initially thought his pornography was related to his depression and that he was not a pedophile.

I am not trying to justify the mistakes that Bishop Finn made. I am sure he is second-guessing himself plenty. I am just saying that there is a lot of blame to go around, none of which was deliberate or criminal.

I would like that the media would stay on top of this all the way, fairly if that was possible. I fear it is not. After all, we have here a case of a pedophile at the onset of pedophilia. It would serve well, since this is the first case for this diocese in a while, to show that the Catholic Church is no longer the easier target for such people to hang their hat and target children for years.

I would also hope that other bishops will re-double their effort to pro-actively stop these people while they are grooming the parish and before they act.
 
Hopey said:
It is not good for the Bishops to remain naive imo. If they do, the same things could happen over and over.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. They must not remain naive. Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Better still is to learn from the mistakes of others. These response teams need to bring in some cops with a good nose, though. They will always be better at spotting a con than a bishop.
 
@pnewton & hopey

I have read the report now, too - - for some reason I didn’t realize it was online (thanks for the link). After reading it, I have come to a different conclusion than I had before. I think the Bp. is done on this, for all practical purposes. I get that he got apparently bad advice from Msgr. Murphy, but holy smokes, what is the point of having a review board, etc., if you don’t let them know something is up. One would think at this point that technical readings of “is this actionable porn or not” would not be made solely by one diocesan official, who, by any fair reading, did not accurately summarize the totality of the circumstances. Actual naked pictures? How does that not make you put in the call to at least the review board? And, all problems are avoided by calling the police.

To me, actually the most frightening thing is that Msgr. Murphy pushed away the written report prepared by Principal Hess. I cannot think of a legitmate reason for doing so.

Finally, a good part of the diocesan actions seem to be designed to protect Fr. Ratigan’s privacy. Fer cryin’ out loud, how do you not tell the families in the parish.

Whether he is technically guilty or not, Bp. Finn should resign. The buck stops with him.
 
pnewton said:
Yes, it does seem so. The quotes you gave were from May 2011, after the report was made and Fr. Ratigan arrested. When I said the technician said they had been downloaded from the internet, that too is true. People have to base decisions on knowledge they have, not knowledge they will have. Non-technical people rely on those who know computers to tell them what they do not know. I think it is also of interest that Dr. Fitzgibbons who evaluated the priest initially thought his pornography was related to his depression and that he was not a pedophile.

I am not trying to justify the mistakes that Bishop Finn made. I am sure he is second-guessing himself plenty. I am just saying that there is a lot of blame to go around, none of which was deliberate or criminal.

I would like that the media would stay on top of this all the way, fairly if that was possible. I fear it is not. After all, we have here a case of a pedophile at the onset of pedophilia. It would serve well, since this is the first case for this diocese in a while, to show that the Catholic Church is no longer the easier target for such people to hang their hat and target children for years.

I would also hope that other bishops will re-double their effort to pro-actively stop these people while they are grooming the parish and before they act.
Click to expand...
I do not generally trust the media either. I was very disturbed by Dr. Fitzgibbons original finding but did you notice in the footnotes, it seems to indicate he didn’t know?
(pg 99)
When Dr. Fitzgibbons was later told that Fr. Ratigan had been arrested and that the arrest was
based in part upon images appearing on the hard drive that Dr. Fitzgibbons had been provided
several months earlier, Dr. Fitzgibbons responded by denying that he had seen any child
pornography on the drive.
 
choose_to_love said:
@pnewton & hopey

I have read the report now, too - - for some reason I didn’t realize it was online (thanks for the link). After reading it, I have come to a different conclusion than I had before. I think the Bp. is done on this, for all practical purposes. I get that he got apparently bad advice from Msgr. Murphy, but holy smokes, what is the point of having a review board, etc., if you don’t let them know something is up. One would think at this point that technical readings of “is this actionable porn or not” would not be made solely by one diocesan official, who, by any fair reading, did not accurately summarize the totality of the circumstances. Actual naked pictures? How does that not make you put in the call to at least the review board? And, all problems are avoided by calling the police.

To me, actually the most frightening thing is that Msgr. Murphy pushed away the written report prepared by Principal Hess. I cannot think of a legitmate reason for doing so.

Finally, a good part of the diocesan actions seem to be designed to protect Fr. Ratigan’s privacy. Fer cryin’ out loud, how do you not tell the families in the parish.

Whether he is technically guilty or not, Bp. Finn should resign. The buck stops with him.
Click to expand...
Those are good questions.
I know after the Philadelphia mishandling, Pope Benedict said that although it is good to have a review board, a Bishop (especially when he is privy to other information) can not give is authority completely over to them.

In the Philadelphia case, the board members stated they had no power to question even. They were presented with the facts and they made a judgement on what was given them.

Praying for all.
 
👍
choose_to_love said:
@pnewton & hopey

I have read the report now, too - - for some reason I didn’t realize it was online (thanks for the link). After reading it, I have come to a different conclusion than I had before. I think the Bp. is done on this, for all practical purposes. I get that he got apparently bad advice from Msgr. Murphy, but holy smokes, what is the point of having a review board, etc., if you don’t let them know something is up. One would think at this point that technical readings of “is this actionable porn or not” would not be made solely by one diocesan official, who, by any fair reading, did not accurately summarize the totality of the circumstances. Actual naked pictures? How does that not make you put in the call to at least the review board? And, all problems are avoided by calling the police.

To me, actually the most frightening thing is that Msgr. Murphy pushed away the written report prepared by Principal Hess. I cannot think of a legitmate reason for doing so.

Finally, a good part of the diocesan actions seem to be designed to protect Fr. Ratigan’s privacy. Fer cryin’ out loud, how do you not tell the families in the parish.

Whether he is technically guilty or not, Bp. Finn should resign. The buck stops with him.
Click to expand...
👍

Every archdiocese should have a crisis team (that include independent people, computer specialist, lawyer, etc) ready. When a report is made such as came from Principal Hess, a full investigation should have commenced with 24 hours. A complete review of conduct, computer files, emails, and a polygraph.
 
JimG

From your link defending the Bishop…
“Many strange photos (crotch-focused) of young girls, fully clothed, were found on the laptop of a priest last December; one showed a girl naked. Though Bishop Finn never saw it, he was told of it. The result? The picture was described to a police officer the next day, and an attorney for the Diocese was shown the photo. It was determined that the photo, while disturbing, did not constitute child pornography”

Here’s the problem. This level of “investigation” is either a sign of incompetatncy or corruption. Almost a church version of “Ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies.” You have acomputer with “strange photos(crotch-focused) of young girls…”. Computer specialist should be called in and a complete and thourough independent investigation done. Did the Bishop commit a crime? I don’t know, but how many times do we accept these pathetic excuses. The bottom line is that protecting the children always seem to come last on the priority list.
 
the “rest of the story”
  • The priest learns that they’re on to him; he attempts suicide; he almost dies; he recovers; he is sent for treatment; he is not considered to be a pedophile, but is said to be suffering from depression; he is then placed in a spot away from children; he is subjected to restrictions. After violating the restrictions, the cops are called; more damaging photos are then found.*
 
The item from the Catholic League was simply a preliminary note. I expect they will publish a more complete report soon.

I don’t have any particular opinion on how such things should be handled. If a bishop or his representative is to be allowed to simply seize and search every priest’s possessions at the first hint of a scandal, I would hate to be a priest being ordained today. In this case, the bishop immediately removed the priest in question from all contact with children before there was any evidence of a crime.
 
I don’t know whether Bishop Finn is innocent of the charges or not. I hope he is innocent. I doubt if charges would have been brought against him was there not adequate evidence of some wrong-doing.
Code: 
On the one hand, some priests - I feel - have been targeted who are innocent. The main reason would be financial gain by the accusers. Some accusers may have mental problems and imagine things. Occasional anti-Catholicism could be involved, but that would be very rare and unlikely. Donohue goes overboard in charging anti-Catholicism whether it exists or not. It is true, of course, that the churches in the USA have lost considerable status, and with it respect, over the past generation.

 On the other hand, too often Catholic priests have been involved in sexual scandal - usually of a homosexual nature with teenage youth - and efforts were made over the years to cover this over. A major part of the problem has stemmed from a deliberate effort of the hierarchy to fret more about the reputation of the church than the crime committed. Often church leadership felt that they had the right and duty to handle such problems without government interference. This may have come from those days when, in many countries, Catholicism was so strong that it was beyond the arm of the law. What was especially outrageous was appointing such priests to other parishes! Something I still fail to understand. It certainly led to a mess.

 This scandal, of course, is not only an American problem. It has aroused enormous hostility in many other countries. A tragic human failing too often poorly handled by the hierarchy.

  Priests are human beings, and with tens of thousands of them some will fall and fall badly. Even a greater sin of the Church was trying to cover this over.
 
Roy5 said:
I don’t know whether Bishop Finn is innocent of the charges or not. I hope he is innocent. I doubt if charges would have been brought against him was there not adequate evidence of some wrong-doing.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t put too much stock into an indictment. Indictments are relatively easy to get against anyone. There is no defense or cross examination, its simply the prosecution laying out what it claims to have happened and why it thinks as such without any refutation. As the old saying goes: “you can indict a ham sandwich…”
 
NewEnglandPries said:
I wouldn’t put too much stock into an indictment. Indictments are relatively easy to get against anyone. There is no defense or cross examination, its simply the prosecution laying out what it claims to have happened and why it thinks as such without any refutation. As the old saying goes: “you can indict a ham sandwich…”
Click to expand...
And it’s not often that a D.A. calls a press conference to announce indictment on a misdemeanor charge, as was the case here.
 
JimG said:
And it’s not often that a D.A. calls a press conference to announce indictment on a misdemeanor charge, as was the case here.
Click to expand...
Unless you want to score points in the press. When is the next election cycle?
 
The independent review report commissioned by the diocese is pretty damning. It includes reference to such inane decisions as turning the priest’s computer over to the priest’s brother. It does not bode well for the diocese and its functionaries.

**
The Report of the Independent Review Commissioned by the Diocese**

And, when push comes to shove, a bishop, like any executive, ultimately bears responsibility for what occurs on his watch. That any bishop would not take the time to seriously review such allegations - personally - after the fiasco of the past two decades indicates being out-of-touch with the real world (and not in a good, spiritual, way). What will it take before all those in hierarchical positions of both authority AND RESPONSIBILITY realize what that means?
 
Diakonia said:
The independent review report commissioned by the diocese is pretty damning. It includes reference to such inane decisions as turning the priest’s computer over to the priest’s brother. It does not bode well for the diocese and its functionaries.
Click to expand...
I read the report and came to the opposite conclusion. There is nothing in the report that suggest any criminal or immoral action, in my opinion. There were several mistakes that were pointed out that need to be corrected. Reports in hindsight will always find mistakes. Always. Every organization, every action, mistakes can be found looking back. Crime requires a level of culpability that the report did not assign, especially to the bishop.

Consider a car accident, something that could happen to any of us. If someone is injured or killed, would you want the prospect of facing prison for innocent mistakes, like having a tire with too little tread, or forgeting to check your blind spot? These are all mistakes, yet they do not constitute criminal activity, even when coupled with bad results.
 
This is very sad. However, I am glad that it is not a felony. I will pray for him.
 
Diakonia said:
It includes reference to such inane decisions as turning the priest’s computer over to the priest’s brother.
Click to expand...
I do not give that much weight. For 1, legal counsel advised that there was no harm in turning the laptop back because a copy of the hard drive had been made. 2nd, the DA in the state’s case against Ratigan is not using any of the images from the laptop in their prosecution. All of their evidence was obtained from Ratigan’s personal belongings in storage, and was never known of or in possession of the diocese.

The federal case is using one image from the laptop in their case against Ratigan, it is the 2nd of 13 counts. Failure to report that one image will fall on the vicar general and possibly the police captain as well.

The Graves Commission was done explicitly for transparency and self-correction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top