Bishop Finn, diocese indicted

[choose_to_love]

@kmaaj: where did you get that info? I had not seen it specifically mentioned one way or the other. I think that would make a difference in the defense.

Two, I think the larger point here is that if Bp. Finn is able to gain an acquittal for whatever reason, it will be seen as him weaseling out of responsibility. That is precisely the kind of reputation the Church does not need right now, second only probably to him being convicted or taking a plea (would a nolo contendere be accepted? it might be the most appropriate). Even if he didn’t know, he should have - - he’s the bishop, and the buck stops with him (in the sense that he should have looked at that computer and not relied upon a summary from Msgr. Murphy).

Second, and probably as important, how in the world are the families at the affected parishes not notified once the diocese had the laptop? Even if what was on the laptop isn’t criminal, that was way beyond boundary violations. The inaction is then compounded by the basically ineffectual restrictions put upon Fr Ratigan, although in fairness, I’m not sure what else the diocese could do. That does not change that the restrictions were ineffective. Another good argument for . . .

Third, all of this is avoided if the diocese just turns over the computer to the police right away, and let the actual police determine if a crime has been committed, instead of guessing and supposing. Fer cryin’ out loud, it was a bunch of crotch shots and a naked kid! When I first heard the story, and heard it was pictures of kids, that is not what I thought it meant - - I could see him having “regular” pictures of kids since he’s the pastor at a parish with a school. That is not what the diocese encountered on that laptop.

fourth, this whole incident further reinforces the perception that the Church cares more about itself and the priest than the kids involved. Why didn’t the Bp. make it his business to check this out further? Why did Msgr. Murphy try to push Prinicipal Hess’s report back to her? Why does Fr. Offut, I think, write a memo in which diocesan liability comes before harm to kids??

 

[kmaaj]

@kmaaj: where did you get that info?

The state’s affidavit and the federal indictment.

I had not seen it specifically mentioned one way or the other.

Forces that attack the Church often do so not with what they actually say, but with what they LEAVE OUT.

I think that would make a difference in the defense.

I agree.

Two, I think the larger point here is that if Bp. Finn is able to gain an acquittal for whatever reason, it will be seen as him weaseling out of responsibility. That is precisely the kind of reputation the Church does not need right now, second only probably to him being convicted or taking a plea (would a nolo contendere be accepted? it might be the most appropriate). Even if he didn’t know, he should have - - he’s the bishop, and the buck stops with him (in the sense that he should have looked at that computer and not relied upon a summary from Msgr. Murphy).

I disagree. It was specifically Msgr. Murphy’s job. The monsignor failed to do his job. He is no longer in that job.

Second, and probably as important, how in the world are the families at the affected parishes not notified once the diocese had the laptop? Even if what was on the laptop isn’t criminal, that was way beyond boundary violations. The inaction is then compounded by the basically ineffectual restrictions put upon Fr Ratigan, although in fairness, I’m not sure what else the diocese could do. That does not change that the restrictions were ineffective. Another good argument for . . .

The deacon in that parish was a key player, and he knew everything that was going on. Deacons are given a lot of weight in their parish’s business. As to the “ineffectual restrictions”, I place the onus solely on Ratigan.

Third, all of this is avoided if the diocese just turns over the computer to the police right away, and let the actual police determine if a crime has been committed, instead of guessing and supposing. Fer cryin’ out loud, it was a bunch of crotch shots and a naked kid! When I first heard the story, and heard it was pictures of kids, that is not what I thought it meant - - I could see him having “regular” pictures of kids since he’s the pastor at a parish with a school. That is not what the diocese encountered on that laptop.

This is where the BIGGEST LIE is occurring via the information left out. The monsignor DID call a police captain and described the worst photo. Said police captain got a second opinion from a police sergeant with experience in the Crimes Against Children Section. Both advised Murphy that the photo, while disturbing, did not legally constitute “child pornography”. Murphy relayed this to the bishop, who mistakenly interpreted that as the police -had- seen the photo. The news reports that the police captain was a church buddy who served on the IRB, and they are correct. What they leave out is that by KCPD rules of conduct and code of ethics, both the police captain and the sergeant are ow obliged to either investigate or turn it over to the relevant department. By state law, both the police captain and the sergeant are now “mandated reporters”.

Bishop Finn thought the the police had been contacted and that the police declined to investigate any further. What Bishop Finn did not know was the exact nature in which the photos were reported. As to the “buck stops here” mentality, I disagree. Members of the Body of Christ have their place and vocation. Murphy was delegated a specific job. That job entailed fielding these cases, assessing their severity, reporting them to the authorities, contacting the victims, and communicating ALL of the details to his bishop. Murphy did not do this.

fourth, this whole incident further reinforces the perception that the Church cares more about itself and the priest than the kids involved. Why didn’t the Bp. make it his business to check this out further? Why did Msgr. Murphy try to push Prinicipal Hess’s report back to her? Why does Fr. Offut, I think, write a memo in which diocesan liability comes before harm to kids??

I reject the notion that the Church caring about herself and her holy priests has to be exclusive from caring about children. That circle of caring cannot be separated, it has to be continual, ongoing, and one and the same.

I suggest that you read the Graves Commission, all of Bishop Finn’s statements, make a “timeline of events”, and then weigh that against the actual news reports. I can see the disparity as plain as day.

 

[m134e5]

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

The Church is not a democracy. Sadly, so many people in this country do not understand that. We do not elect the bishops. Their office- or their right to keep that office- does not depend on how much we like them. We can be outraged at the evil that has been done, and we cannot help but form opinions on how things were handled- but as as unfair as it seems to our 21st century, post-enlightenment minds, we do NOT have the right to tell our bishops to resign.

 

[Corki]

Two, I think the larger point here is that if Bp. Finn is able to gain an acquittal for whatever reason, it will be seen as him weaseling out of responsibility. That is precisely the kind of reputation the Church does not need right now.

So you would rather see him found guilty? Just for the PR value of having a scapegoat?

No, the best possible outcome is an outright aquittal. If you want to look at the “reputation” component, it’s about time that all of the safeguards the Bishops and the USCCB have put into place with the charter are discussed publically.

 

[Andrew1960]

Aquittal or not really does not matter. Did he commit a crime? Really doesn’t matter either. The bottom line is that the Bishop bungled the investigation from day one. Was it intential with the intent to limit embarassment to the church or mearly incompetance? I don’t know without more evidence of how they conducted their internal investigation.

When the principal wrote to the Bishop, his full attention should be focused on this matter. He should have called her up and scheduled a meeting ASAP. This is a school pricipal in his own archdiocese. She writes a letter because she has concerns. This is a huge deal. The Bishop dropped the ball. Was it an intentional coverup or incompetant?

 

[estesbob]

Aquittal or not really does not matter. Did he commit a crime? Really doesn’t matter either. The bottom line is that the Bishop bungled the investigation from day one. Was it intential with the intent to limit embarassment to the church or mearly incompetance? I don’t know without more evidence of how they conducted their internal investigation.

When the principal wrote to the Bishop, his full attention should be focused on this matter. He should have called her up and scheduled a meeting ASAP. This is a school pricipal in his own archdiocese. She writes a letter because she has concerns. This is a huge deal. The Bishop dropped the ball. Was it an intentional coverup or incompetant?

“sentence first trial later!” said the Red Queen

 

[agnes_therese]

Aquittal or not really does not matter. Did he commit a crime? Really doesn’t matter either. The bottom line is that the Bishop bungled the investigation from day one. Was it intential with the intent to limit embarassment to the church or mearly incompetance? I don’t know without more evidence of how they conducted their internal investigation.

You need more evidence to know WHY he bungled it, but not to know that he DID bungle it?

Amazing logical sequence there, hon.

 

[kmaaj]

Aquittal or not really does not matter. Did he commit a crime? Really doesn’t matter either.

Sure it does, on both counts.

The bottom line is that the Bishop bungled the investigation from day one.

And you know this how? I see it differently. I see it that the bishop delegated very important functions to what he thought were very competent people. That is a very important aspect of being a bishop. It took 5 months to come to light that some people under the bishop did not fulfill their roles. One of those persons is no longer in his role.

My biggest beef with the bishop is that he is not more of a pit bull to his detractors. That is probably one of the reasons he is a bishop and I am not. No matter what, the bishop’s detractors will give him no quarter.

Was it intential with the intent to limit embarassment to the church or mearly incompetance?

Neither.

I don’t know without more evidence of how they conducted their internal investigation.

Have you read the Graves Commission?

When the principal wrote to the Bishop, his full attention should be focused on this matter. He should have called her up and scheduled a meeting ASAP. This is a school pricipal in his own archdiocese. She writes a letter because she has concerns.

It has been clearly established that the principal’s memo dealt with “boundary violations” and not suspected abuse. Had she suspected abuse, then she is a mandated reporter required by law to go directly to DFS.

This is a huge deal. The Bishop dropped the ball. Was it an intentional coverup or incompetant?

The bishop dropped nothing. He did what was best based on the information given to him by people that he trusted to do their jobs. It was neither an intentional coverup or incompetence. It was a breakdown in communication.

Read the Graves Commission.

 

[Andrew1960]

“I see it that the bishop delegated very important functions to what he thought were very competent people”

Exactly. He bungled it. He assigned an important investigation to an incompetant person and then failed to follow up. Or it was done purposely to insulate the Bishop and have an underling take the fall.

When delegating such an important matter there needs to be followup. “Please look into this immediately. I want a full prgress report within 48 hours.”

 

[kmaaj]

Exactly. He bungled it. He assigned an important investigation to an incompetant person and then failed to follow up.

Wrong. As vicar general, it was EXPLICITLY the monsignor’s job to deal with it TO BEGIN WITH.

Or it was done purposely to insulate the Bishop and have an underling take the fall.

The vicar general is no mere “underling”. The monsignor was second in command, subject to only the bishop. The monsignor had the authority and the obligation to deal entirely with the case according to Mo. state law and diocese statutes WITHOUT EVER UTTERING A WORD OF IT TO HIS BISHOP!

When delegating such an important matter there needs to be followup. “Please look into this immediately. I want a full prgress report within 48 hours.”

We have a Monday morning quarterback in our midst…unless you were in the field of play as it was happening…which I doubt.

Have you read the Graves Commission? Any of the bishop’s actual statements? Have you considered any legal viewpoints contrary to the DA that carry a lot of weight? If so, have you weighed ANY of this against what is being reported? Until you do, please reserve your judgement. If you are an American, our constitution demands that you do reserve your judgement until the bishop has had his day in court.

 

[JimG]

Taking Aim At Bishop Finn
catholicleague.org/taking-aim-at-bishop-finn/

The Kansas City Star vs the Catholic Church
catholicleague.org/kansas-city-star-vs-catholic-church-2/

 

[JimG]

More from Bill Donohue. No, he’s not a journalist. But he is angry.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bAMfZ4KEyVk

 

[m134e5]

The purpose of the vicar general is to represent the bishop- that’s what the title vicar refers to- someone who stands in for another. Administrative concerns such as this were the responsibility of the vicar general- it should not be necessary for the bishop to look over the vicar general’s shoulder, and doing so would defeat the purpose of having a vicar general.

When it became clear that this arrangement had failed, the diocese appointed an ombudsman to take allegations of misconduct by diocesan personnel (volunteers, clergy, religious, and lay employees). The bishop also appointed a vicar for clergy- someone specifically to make sure that the concerns of the clergy. as well as any concerns *about *the clergy, are addressed effectively.

The priest who did this was very popular. I’m sure that for every complaint that was made against him before this news came out, there were many more compliments. He had enemies, but their credibility tended to be questionable because they often disagreed with the Church on some major issue.

 

[JimG]

Suicide of the Kansas City Star

“Ten years ago, there were 1,869 employees at the Star; today there are 840. Given these data, turning down $25K—in today’s economy—must mean the Star is more concerned about getting Bishop Finn than it is the welfare of its own workers. Looks like the Star is suicidal.”

 

[Andrew1960]

As I said previously, the focus should be on protecting the children. I want every Bishop to be on high alert for the first wiff of impropriety, illegal or not. He should feel a personal responsibility to protect every child even if that calls for his own sacrifice. Be that momma bear. How dare you touch one of my children.

That kind of moral outrage seem lacking from some so we are left to try to motivate them through fear. Unfortunately, we never hold them responsible. “I didn’t know.” Pathetic. How could they? I think the logic goes something like this…If I don’t look into the matter, I won’t find anything wrong.

 

[choose_to_love]

Aarrrgh! I had a lengthy response to several posts eaten by the system. I will try again.

@corki: no, I would not rather Bp. Finn be convicted. I would rather he have ensured that the computer got to the police in December 2010.

@kmaaj: if Bp. Finn did not know the exact nature of the photos, why didn’t he? Has he not heard of the sexual abuse scandal? How could he not take a much more hands-on and personal interest in this case? You can say it’s Msgr.'s fault, it’s the deacon’s fault, it’s all of the diocesan staff who did know the nature of the pictures faults, but why did no one, and I mean no one, think to call the police? It is astounding.

As far as Msgr. Murphy describing the “worst” photo to police, obviously this is subject to misinterpretation, as is now being alleged by the Captain - - “that’s not what you told me” p. 106 of the Graves report, p. 109 of the scanned document through the diocesan website, when informed of the hundreds of pictures. Why no follow up call when the rest of the images were discovered? Isn’t that issue solved by just giving the computer to the police? Did no one seriously see the problem here? A bunch of non-police trying to determine a tricky legal standard is a recipe for the disaster we have here, which, incidentally, would still have been avoided if the parishes affected were told. It always comes out, and it always blows up, and the lack of info is worse than being straight with the folks affected.

I do think Bp. Finn dropped the ball on this - - everyone thought it was someone else’s job; I think it is fair to characterize that as a leadership failure, and a failure to create a culture that is more concerned for kids’ safety.

In all honesty, when I hear that there is now an ombudsman and a vicar for clergy, my first though was, now there are two more people who can not call the police when they have a computer full of kids’ crotch shots.

If this were any other organization besides the Church, the “miscommunication” would be irrelevant in an analysis, as the leader failed to pick the right guy for the job.

@m134e5: I understand that the Church is not a democracy. That is why I am not calling for a vote of some sort. Also, I do not think any of Bp. Finn’s actions were intentional, and so I do not think action by the Vatican is appropriate, like for the bishop in Australia (+Morris?) or the various African bishops against whom action has been taken ( Bp. Milingo?). Nonetheless, how can Bp. Finn hope to lead the diocese under the current conditions? I live in a diocese where our very good and holy bishop was apparently essentially forced out, because it was felt he could no longer lead effectively, solely because some laity and apparently some priests were acting, IMO, like spoiled children. I wish he was still our bishop.

 

[kmaaj]

Andrew, when are you going to read the Graves Commission?

 

[kmaaj]

@kmaaj: if Bp. Finn did not know the exact nature of the photos, why didn’t he? Has he not heard of the sexual abuse scandal? How could he not take a much more hands-on and personal interest in this case? You can say it’s Msgr.'s fault, it’s the deacon’s fault, it’s all of the diocesan staff who did know the nature of the pictures faults, but why did no one, and I mean no one, think to call the police? It is astounding.

As far as the bishop was concerned, the police -had- been called and chose not to respond. None of the images on the laptop are being used to prosecute the state’s case. Only one image from the laptop is being used to prosecute the federal case; it is the 2nd of 13 counts listed in the federal indictment. All of the DA’s case against the bishop hinge on that one count. Even if that one count results in a conviction, the failure to report it will fall on the monsignor and everyone who knew about it, which includes the police captain and the police sergeant who were contacted. The nature of -how- all of this was handled and then communicated to the bishop falls solely on the vicar general, and the monsignor is no longer in that position.

I believe the bishop made errors, none of which are criminal, none of which are any of our business, all of which are between himself and my good neighbors at St. Patrick’s.

 

[choose_to_love]

I get all that. I do not think the Bp. will be convicted, if he can get a fair trial, unless the one image turns out to be a child from the county where the charges have been filed. I am not sure how Missouri treats that. It seems to me to be liable for failure to report suspected abuse, the suspected abused child would have to reside within the jurisdiction of the prosecutor. Not sure how that could be proved, unless Fr. Ratigan tries to cut a deal, and it would seem the prosecutor there will not need Fr.'s cooperation. Graves seems to believe there have been convictions for just nude photos, but I don’t know if there are any Missouri appellate cases on point.

However, - it is simply incredible that the response was not to just turn it all over to the police. The institutional Church has been telling us for years that this kind of thing cannot happen. I am really amazed that the computer tech guy, who asked, I think, his two brothers, his pastor, and his wife, all of whom advised him to turn it over to the police, didn’t do it.

 

[kmaaj]

However, I agree with Andrew to an extent - - it is simply incredible that the response was not to just turn it all over to the police…

From the bishop’s POV from december to may, he thought it had been turned over to the police, and they declined to investigate any further.