Kansas City Bishop Robert Finn under Vatican investigation

  • Thread starter Thread starter robertmidwest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mulligan2 said:
When you say “the National Catholic Reporter has a certain reputation,” I’m not sure what you are referring to. I perused their website, and I found many articles related to helping the poor, pointing out societal injustices, and also an honest discussion of what the Church must do to right the wrong of child sexual abuse.
Click to expand...
He means that the National Catholic Reporter aggressively promotes a heterodox agenda. They want the Catholic Church to give up her Catholic teachings on faith and morals.

Website Review: National Catholic Reporter

Description
The National Catholic Reporter is a lay-edited Catholic newsweekly. This website is an online version of the Reporter. Its self-described mission is to “report, comment and reflect on the church and society. It strives for excellence in its publications, supporting a full, honest and open exchange of ideas. It works out of a Roman Catholic tradition and an ecumenical spirit.” Unfortunately, the Reporter’s version of honest and open exchange is to criticize the Church and many of its most central teachings.

Because of the ever changing nature of this site, specific examples may vary. However, every visit to this site confirms its commitment to dissent. For example, a visit on July 11, 2007, reveals a fund raising effort which includes a free copy of the notorious dissident Sr. Joan Chittister’s book, From Where I Stand. We recommend that you resist the urge to contribute.

Fidelity: Danger!
Resources: Poor
Useability: Excellent

Strengths
None Reported.

Weaknesses
Fidelity: Not-so-Catholic newsletters
Fidelity: Subscribes to liberation theology
Fidelity: Supports priesthood as a gay vocation
Fidelity: Criticizes the institutional church
Fidelity: Attacks the priesthood
Fidelity: Dissidents as regular columnists

Source
 
livingwordunity said:
He means that the National Catholic Reporter aggressively promotes a heterodox agenda. They want the Catholic Church to give up her Catholic teachings on faith and morals.

Website Review: National Catholic Reporter

Description
The National Catholic Reporter is a lay-edited Catholic newsweekly. This website is an online version of the Reporter. Its self-described mission is to “report, comment and reflect on the church and society. It strives for excellence in its publications, supporting a full, honest and open exchange of ideas. It works out of a Roman Catholic tradition and an ecumenical spirit.” Unfortunately, the Reporter’s version of honest and open exchange is to criticize the Church and many of its most central teachings.

Because of the ever changing nature of this site, specific examples may vary. However, every visit to this site confirms its commitment to dissent. For example, a visit on July 11, 2007, reveals a fund raising effort which includes a free copy of the notorious dissident Sr. Joan Chittister’s book, From Where I Stand. We recommend that you resist the urge to contribute.

Fidelity: Danger!
Resources: Poor
Useability: Excellent

Strengths
None Reported.

Weaknesses
Fidelity: Not-so-Catholic newsletters
Fidelity: Subscribes to liberation theology
Fidelity: Supports priesthood as a gay vocation
Fidelity: Criticizes the institutional church
Fidelity: Attacks the priesthood
Fidelity: Dissidents as regular columnists

Source
Click to expand...
So perhaps they’re not an organization that rubber stamps everything. I appreciate critical thinking and analysis. This is far different than ‘criticism’.

They were questioned as a source of information on the thread topic, but clearly their reporting was right in line with what was reported by other Catholic-leaning news sites.
 
Mulligan2 said:
So perhaps they’re not an organization that rubber stamps everything. I appreciate critical thinking and analysis. This is far different than ‘criticism’.

They were questioned as a source of information on the thread topic, but clearly their reporting was right in line with what was reported by other Catholic-leaning news sites.
Click to expand...
Of course some of there content is normal news type stuff, but other stuff not so much.

Complementarity of the sexes: A trap
Looking at the title of this conference also reinforces my view that Pope Francis – wonderful man that he is – still needs a course in “Woman 101.” And maybe “Families 101” as well. His participation in this conference is just the latest sign that he has not moved into the 21st century when it comes to either gender roles or marriage.
Click to expand...
 
I’m not sure how criticizing complementarity means that one is against the Church. I have issues with use of terminology. It seems that a woman’s ability to have children has been used in the past to prevent women from speaking in the public sphere or having a career. I don’t know how many times I’ve been told by Catholic men that my only goal in life should be to marry, have children, and be a stay-at-home super mommy. It is all quite discouraging. I think that rather than enforcing strict gender stereotypes the Church should really do more to embrace the Sister Maureen’s point that a woman can be a CEO and a man can be a stay-at-home daddy.

As for National Catholic Reporter, it does have writers who tend to not be faithful to the Magisterium. That is a fair point. However, their criticism about the sexual abuse scandal is very valid. It is frustrating that so many Catholic news sources refuse to criticize the Church for its handling of the scandal. Bishops and priests aren’t always right and those bishops and priests who covered up for sexual predators are very wrong. It would be okay if these news sources would say so.
 
The Distorter’s disloyalty to Church teaching does not make news story false. Blaming the media is a red herring and makes us appear to be Bolsheviks who won’t hold our leaders accountable. Worse still, it makes us Catholics look like sociopaths who don’t care about protecting children.

I live on the Kansas side of KC, and believe Bishop Finn needs to step down. I don’t care if he is of impeccable orthodoxy; Bernard Cardinal Law was also, and he let sex predator priests run wild in Boston back in the '80s. Regardless of whether Finn’s actiond were out pf indifference or mere incompetence, his reputation and the KCMO diocese’s are both in shambles. This fiasco has, sadly, led me to have some distrust for the diocese across the state line from me.

Here on the Kansas side, Archbishop Naumann has been much more responsive and proactive. I’ve heard a couple allegations of misconduct since I’ve been active in the Church, and they’ve been dealt with swiftly, as it should be, thanks be to God. If I were a bishop, I’d be running an all-out witch hunt for predator priests.
 
JackVk said:
The Distorter’s disloyalty to Church teaching does not make news story false.
Click to expand...
I agree. We are getting off topic here.
JackVk said:
I don’t care if he is of impeccable orthodoxy; Bernard Cardinal Law was also, and he let sex predator priests run wild in Boston back in the '80s.
Click to expand...
HIs loyalty to orthodoxy is what got him in trouble. Fr. Ratigan gave the appearance of a social/theological/political conservative so he got a pass. Another priest who may have leaned to the left more would have been dismissed much quicker.

In 2010-2011 our diocese was still living the good ole’ boy way of doing things of the past. Even after Bishop Finn had agreed in a prior court case to do things differently. His reputation of arrogance seems deserving.
 
sttcatherinefan said:
I’m not sure how criticizing complementarity means that one is against the Church. I have issues with use of terminology. It seems that a woman’s ability to have children has been used in the past to prevent women from speaking in the public sphere or having a career. I don’t know how many times I’ve been told by Catholic men that my only goal in life should be to marry, have children, and be a stay-at-home super mommy. It is all quite discouraging. I think that rather than enforcing strict gender stereotypes the Church should really do more to embrace the Sister Maureen’s point that a woman can be a CEO and a man can be a stay-at-home daddy.

As for National Catholic Reporter, it does have writers who tend to not be faithful to the Magisterium. That is a fair point. However, their criticism about the sexual abuse scandal is very valid. It is frustrating that so many Catholic news sources refuse to criticize the Church for its handling of the scandal. Bishops and priests aren’t always right and those bishops and priests who covered up for sexual predators are very wrong. It would be okay if these news sources would say so.
Click to expand...
I think a slight difference in gender roles is not completely contrary to the Gospel (people get mad at Ephesians 5, claiming it to be sexist, when it reaffirms that men havr a duty to serve, not lord it over, their wives. As a dude, I have no problem with a woman having a career, serving in the military, etc. I also don’t think a dad being a “Mr. Mom” is wrong.

On the flipside, I think I’d be hard-pressed to find a Catholic, and a devout one, who thinkd that it’s virtuous for a man to be ambitious.
 
We will have to wait for the Vatican decision as to whether or not Bishop Finn will remain as Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph. There is no doubt that the bishop has many enemies who would wish to see him go. If he does go, it would be good to have someone like Bishop Chaput to replace him. (I could think of some candidates but I am not on the Vatican’s list of advisors!)

By way of background, the Catholic League has published several commentaries on the matter, two of which are linked below:

Kansas City Star Targets Bishop Finn Again
catholicleague.org/kansas-city-star-targets-finn-2/

The Quest To Scalp A Bishop
catholicleague.org/quest-scalp-bishop/
 
JimG said:
We will have to wait for the Vatican decision as to whether or not Bishop Finn will remain as Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph. There is no doubt that the bishop has many enemies who would wish to see him go. If he does go, it would be good to have someone like Bishop Chaput to replace him. (I could think of some candidates but I am not on the Vatican’s list of advisors!)

By way of background, the Catholic League has published several commentaries on the matter, two of which are linked below:

Kansas City Star Targets Bishop Finn Again
catholicleague.org/kansas-city-star-targets-finn-2/

The Quest To Scalp A Bishop
catholicleague.org/quest-scalp-bishop/
Click to expand...
Jim G:

Thanks for posting. The mainstream media is basically having a field day with Bishop Finn, and Finn is standing strong. I’ve heard he’s a good bishop.

Another bishop that needs prayers is Archbishop John Nienstedt. The mainstream media in his diocese (particularly the Minnesota Star-Tribune) the Archdiocese of Minneapolis-St. Paul, is also having a field day, and Nienstedt is remaining strong.
 
He may not be a perfect Bishop, but Bishop Finn cannot be accused of doing* nothing* in this sordid incident. He did report the allegations of child pornography to the police as soon as he had evidence backing up the allegations against the guilty priest-he certainly didn’t try to cover it up as some seem to claim. At worst he may have been a bit slow in realizing this priest was no good.

Methinks he is being targeted by the Kansas City Star and National Catholic Reporter not because of this incident but because of his Orthodox views.
 
Bishop Finn is suffering from the same progressive tactics as are being used against Archbishop Cordileone. Conservative, traditional Bishops who find themselves appointed to Dioceses that have a progressive slant run into trouble. The progressives within the Church are no different than the progressives in politics, they are all about tolerance as long as you tolerate what they want. Go against them, emphasize the perinial teachings of the Church, and watch the knives come out. The tactics are right out of Saul Alinsky.
 
Johann_du_Toit said:
He did report the allegations of child pornography to the police as soon as he had evidence backing up the allegations against the guilty priest
Click to expand...
No. I am sorry that is not correct.The diocese had the laptop and pictures in their possession for months before turning it over to the police. That is why he was convicted. Please read the details of the case.

He was supposed to turn over all suspected abusers immediately to the police. This was part of the settlement of previous lawsuit. The diocese AGAIN paid out millions in damages when an arbitrator found that the failure to immediately turn Fr.Ratigan over to the police violated the agreement. Again please read the details of the case.
 
robertmidwest said:
No. I am sorry that is not correct.The diocese had the laptop and pictures in their possession for months before turning it over to the police. That is why he was convicted. Please read the details of the case.

He was supposed to turn over all suspected abusers immediately to the police. This was part of the settlement of previous lawsuit. The diocese AGAIN paid out millions in damages when an arbitrator found that the failure to immediately turn Fr.Ratigan over to the police violated the agreement. Again please read the details of the case.
Click to expand...
catholicleague.org/kansas-city-star-targets-finn-2/
 
Johann_du_Toit said:
catholicleague.org/kansas-city-star-targets-finn-2/
Click to expand...
Please read the Graves report of the investigation. It is the report commissioned by the diocese.

This report you link to is misleading. They state he was found not be a pedophile and the porn pictures were found later. Read the Graves report whiich indicate the diocese bypassed the independent commision that with Fr. Ratigan.

When they found out he was not following restrictions they turned him over to the police. He should have been turned over to police from day one. The laptop should have turned over from day one. This is the whole point. There should never have been an attemp to handle this “in house”. And again the diocese attempt to handle Fr. Ratigan totally bypassed the review board that was supposed to be notified.

Please read the Graves report. It describes in detail how the pictures on the laptop were poorly described to one police officer (who was know to be friendly to the diocese). The laptop and it’s contintents were not given and impartial reveiw. The Graves report was commissioned by the diocese but was still very critical of the handling of the case. It clearly states the evidence was mishandled, the independant reveiw was bypassed. Their own commission report clearly laid blame on the dioce (Bishop Finn is the head of the diocese)

Please review the Graves report and then see the points in the Catholic League article still stand. I honestly think your opinion will change.
 
JimG said:
From what I have read, Bishop Finn is considered quite orthodox, and that is part of the problem. He inherited a situation in the Kansas City Missouri area in which Catholic dissent was widespread. While I have not kept up with his career, or this particular case, my impression is that he did a good job of cleaning up the mess. That angered a lot of people, who wanted his scalp.

**The scalpers got their chance when a rogue priest was discovered to have indecent photos of kids on his laptop. The bishop apparently consulted someone on the police force who was also a parishioner, and was told that the photos were not child porn and thus not reportable. Nevertheless, the bishop immediately removed the priest from contact with children.

When other pictures were found later, the bishop was charged with a misdemeanor failure to report suspicion of child abuse, to which he acquiesced.**

In the meantime, from reports I have read in the K.C. Star, now a man is suing the diocese for damages for failing to stop him from being abused by a priest 40 years ago. The priest he alleges to have abused him is dead. The bishop who was head of the diocese at the time is dead. The Star seems to report on this case frequently.

From what I’ve seen, the Star has a long standing anti-Catholic bias, a dislike for orthodox bishops, and a columnist who also displays anti-Catholic bias. That’s my impression anyway. From what I’ve heard, the prosecutor in the both these cases has been anti-Catholic for a long time.

If the bishop had been a minimally orthodox, liberal bishop, this case would have far less media attention.

Yes, my own bias is showing as well. I think the KC media, especially the newspaper is quite hostile to the bishop and to the Catholic Church in general.

It is worth noting that K.C. Mo. is home of the National Catholic Reporter.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the details!

He was charged with a misdemeanor. No one was molested on his watch. Hopefully he has learned his lesson.

He needs to report even if a police officer tells him that it is not child porn. It needs to be recorded.

End of case of far as I can see. The other case was 40 years ago not in his time.You don’t have a group like SNAP protesting do you?

It says that most of the pictures on his computer were children with clothes. Maybe that is why the police officer was confused about this. From what I have read, there were no molestation charges? Is that correct?
 
robertmidwest said:
Thank you!!!

That is the whole point! Their own independant review faulted the diocese for not mading a report!

The Graves report called the “verbal description of one photo to a police officer” as misguided.

diocese-kcsj.org/_docs/8-31-11_Report_of_Independent_Investigation.pdf
Click to expand...
We are getting no news of this on the East Coast. I have read a few articles but it seems that the diocese did report it but 6 months later. Is this correct and again was there any molestation?

This priest got 50 years for attempting to make child porn pictures, is that correct?
 
gam197 said:
We are getting no news of this on the East Coast. I have read a few articles but it seems that the diocese did report it but 6 months later. Is this correct and again was there any molestation?

This priest got 50 years for attempting to make child porn pictures, is that correct?
Click to expand...
The diocese took six months to turn the laptop over to the police. December to May. During the six months Fr. Ratigan was forbidden to be around kids by the diocese. They tried to deal with problem in house. He disobeyed those orders. During a party he was invited to he was caught by a parent using his cell phone trying to take pics up a childs dress. After this the diocese then reported him to the police. Fr. Ratigan took a plea bargain of 50 years for the porn on the laptop.

Prior to the Fr. Ratigan incident the diocese had settled another lawsuit, agreeing that in future cases would given to the police. Not following up the agreement cost millions of dollars in additional payments. All of this is readily available in the media. People can claim media bias all they want, buy incidents are well documented. There is no one disputing these things happened. The investigation commissioned by the diocese showed the diocese failed.

When this incident broke there was a guy in my prayer group who stated “well at least no one was molested”. I thought wow that is easy to say when it’s not your kid who was photographed nude and those images used to stimulate a pedophile. If he took a 50 year plea the Feds did not have a weak case. Makes you wonder what was on the laptop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top