Kansas City Bishop Robert Finn under Vatican investigation

[gam197]

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.

I agree with you on the horror of this and I can understand the anger because the Bishop was lax. He suspected something in December but was told by a policeman that it was not child porn. Still he apparently removed this priest from any activity with children and sent him for psychiatric care. More evident came forth and church officials reported it.

From what I have read, this priest came to the priesthood at age 38 and was charged and sent to prison at age 45.

At age 43, parents started to notice and a letter was sent questioning his fondness for children in May 2010 but he never read it.

Yet the Bishop never saw any of the pictures. You’ve got to wonder about a police officer and diocese lawyer who did see the pictures and didn’t think they were sexual.

Did the Bishop get a psychiatric report?

SNAP is involved and that is problematic.

I can see why people are angry.

 

[JimG]

I agree with you on the horror of this and I can understand the anger because the Bishop was lax. He suspected something in December but was told by a policeman that it was not child porn. Still he apparently removed this priest from any activity with children and sent him for psychiatric care. More evident came forth and church officials reported it.

From what I have read, this priest came to the priesthood at age 38 and was charged and sent to prison at age 45.

At age 43, parents started to notice and a letter was sent questioning his fondness for children in May 2010 but he never read it.

Yet the Bishop never saw any of the pictures. You’ve got to wonder about a police officer and diocese lawyer who did see the pictures and didn’t think they were sexual.

Did the Bishop get a psychiatric report?

SNAP is involved and that is problematic.

I can see why people are angry.

The bishop did obtain a psychiatric report, but only after the priest attempted suicide. Because it looked at first as though he might not survive his suicide attempt, the psychiatric report and much of the investigation, seems to have been put on hold.

Certainly the case was mishandled, mainly because the bishop believed that the photos were not considered to be child pornography, based on the advice of a police captain who was also a member of the diocesan team responsible for investigating allegations of child abuse. But the police captain was forming an opinion based only on a verbal description of one photo. The Graves report gives a detailed description of the photos (although they were not available to the Graves team either.) The priest seems to have been fixated on children, but was not classified as a pedophile.

Probably the most egregious mistake was in not taking action based upon a school principal’s report of the priest’s “bouindary violations” with children. Again, that was because boundary violations are not legally actionable; still, there were a lot of red flags with this priest. Given the nature of the photos compared to other child porn cases, I am somewhat surprised at the severity of the sentence.

Regardless of the legal merits of the case, I am still convinced that the Kansas City Star would have downplayed this case or given it less attention if the bishop had been a bishop more to their liking–an NCR kind of bishop. As it is, they are playing it up for all it’s worth.

In skimming though the Graves report, there were several cases mentioned of complainants who alleged possible child abuse some 40 years after the fact. I note that the diocesan Independent Review Board rated some of these as “not credible” and yet later the diocese agreed to a settlement.

 

[gam197]

It is tough to take action on “boundaries”.

Who did the Graves report. Was it a group or one individual? ** The dioceses’ lawyer saw the pictures and so wouldn’t he have known?** Why didn’t the police captain persue it?

Just read it.

The diocese released the 141-page report compiled by the law firm of Todd Graves, which was hired by Bishop Robert Finn in June to evaluate how the diocese handles allegations against priests

.

So this was private firm hired in June and they probably told them to report it?

originally posted by JimG
In skimming though the Graves report, there were several cases mentioned of complainants who alleged possible child abuse some 40 years after the fact. I note that the diocesan Independent Review Board rated some of these as “not credible” and yet later the diocese agreed to a settlement.

This doesn’t surprise me because they know abuse has been going on(not necessarily here) and they didn’t want bad press

 

[gam197]

Father Ratigan was charged in May with 3 counts of child porn and the law firm of Graves who did the report was not hired until June so they were not the ones who told the Church to report it. Nor would they have seen the pictures until then.

What bothers me in that the article said that the Church individuals reported it and not the Bishop. It says he was unaware that they reported it.

Still would like questions answered by about this captain on the police force and dioceses’ lawyer?

 

[robertmidwest]

I agree with you on the horror of this and I can understand the anger because the Bishop was lax. He suspected something in December but was told by a policeman that it was not child porn. Still he apparently removed this priest from any activity with children and sent him for psychiatric care. More evident came forth and church officials reported it.

From what I have read, this priest came to the priesthood at age 38 and was charged and sent to prison at age 45.

At age 43, parents started to notice and a letter was sent questioning his fondness for children in May 2010 but he never read it.

Yet the Bishop never saw any of the pictures. You’ve got to wonder about a police officer and diocese lawyer who did see the pictures and didn’t think they were sexual.

Did the Bishop get a psychiatric report?

SNAP is involved and that is problematic.

I can see why people are angry.

The police officer never saw the pic. One of the pics was described to him over the phone by the Bishops second in command. I am sure he was hand picked because it was felt he would be biased toward diocese. The good ole’ boy network was in full force. The Graves report called it a “misguided decision”. That’s a pretty good euphemism.

 

[JimG]

It is tough to take action on “boundaries”.

Who did the Graves report. Was it a group or one individual? ** The dioceses’ lawyer saw the pictures and so wouldn’t he have known?** Why didn’t the police captain persue it?

Just read it.
.

So this was private firm hired in June and they probably told them to report it?

This doesn’t surprise me because they know abuse has been going on(not necessarily here) and they didn’t want bad press

Yes, I don’t know if it has happened in the Kansas City diocese, but I know that some innocent priests have been thrown under the bus when the lawsuits are flying and the diocese is offered a chance to settle some false allegation by throwing it into the mix. (See These Stone Walls.)

After reading about this case, and reading the Graves report, there is one thing I know. I am glad that I am not a priest. One might go through an entire priestly career and be retired, only to find some allegation of abuse brought up 30 or 40 years after the fact, which would be very hard to defend oneself against. Can anyone defend a claim saying just what they were doing on a given day 40 years ago? Yet prosecutors will take those cases, and if a false allegations is made a jury is likely to believe it.

I’m not saying that’s the case with Fr. Ratigan, of course. That allegation was not 40 years old, and he is a highly disturbed individual.

 

[gam197]

The police officer never saw the pic. One of the pics was described to him over the phone by the Bishops second in command. I am sure he was hand picked because it was felt he would be biased toward diocese. The good ole’ boy network was in full force. The Graves report called it a “misguided decision”. That’s a pretty good euphemism.

I don’t care if he saw the picture. He is a captain on the police force and usually has access to these kind of experts and certainly should know about child porn. He of all people should have pursued it.

He was negligent as was the dioceses’ lawyer, who apparent saw the pictures.

 

[robertmidwest]

I don’t care if he saw the picture. He is a captain on the police force and usually has access to these kind of experts and certainly should know about child porn. He of all people should have pursued it.

He was negligent as was the dioceses’ lawyer, who apparent saw the pictures.

Thank you!!!

Is that a little nicer way of saying “They covered it up!”

My point exactly!

 

[JimG]

I don’t care if he saw the picture. He is a captain on the police force and usually has access to these kind of experts and certainly should know about child porn. He of all people should have pursued it.

He was negligent as was the dioceses’ lawyer, who apparent saw the pictures.

I think that very few people saw the photos. One person was asked to review the laptop, and it was she who discovered the many photos. (After the laptop was turned over to the diocese by a computer repairman.) The laptop was in danger of crashing so she copied them to a USB drive for safekeeping. The remarkable thing is that most of the decisions on this investigation were made without anyone who was making the decisions seeing the photos! I don’t fault the police captain; he was acting as an informal advisor to the diocese and was giving an opinion based only on a verbal description of one photo, and he thought that there was just the one. True, he might have advised a forensic examination of the hard drive, but on the basis of what he was told, there was not really sufficient evidence to pursue the matter.

 

[gam197]

Thank you!!!

Is that a little nicer way of saying “They covered it up!”

My point exactly!

No, no necessarily.

In our town we have a whole unit dedicated to child abuse and porn. I am not sure about other towns.

The Captain didn’t question this which is problematic. It seems to me that he should have been more familiar with this; he should have pursued it and possibly he should lose his job.

The lawyer didn’t see a problem with the pictures so maybe he should also be sued. This one I really would like answers from as to how many pictures he saw.

The Bishop never saw the pictures and was describing something he’d never even viewed. He relied upon them both for information and to give him good advice and he certainly didn’t get it. Apparently the priest was approached. When the priest tried to commit suicide, that had to throw everything off.

 

[gam197]

I think that very few people saw the photos. One person was asked to review the laptop, and it was she who discovered the many photos. (After the laptop was turned over to the diocese by a computer repairman.) The laptop was in danger of crashing so she copied them to a USB drive for safekeeping. The remarkable thing is that most of the decisions on this investigation were made without anyone who was making the decisions seeing the photos! I don’t fault the police captain; he was acting as an informal advisor to the diocese and was giving an opinion based only on a verbal description of one photo, and he thought that there was just the one. True, he might have advised a forensic examination of the hard drive, but on the basis of what he was told, there was not really sufficient evidence to pursue the matter.

There sounds like there were a great number of pictures on this computer. The repairman saw and knew. The woman saw and was concerned enough to copy them or at least some of them.

How can you not fault the captain. Most police department today have units that deal only with this because it is so prevalent in the culture. We have one police officer here who is an expert on this. He’s been doing this for years and his name is in the paper regularly.

 

[robertmidwest]

[BIBLEDRB]i[/BIBLEDRB]The police officer was Catholic. He had a bias. That is why they picked him, then gave him limited info. They got the answer they wanted. He wasn’t just the guy who happened to answer the phone that day.

 

[gam197]

[BIBLEDRB]i[/BIBLEDRB]The police officer was Catholic. He had a bias. That is why they picked him, then gave him limited info. They got the answer they wanted. He wasn’t just the guy who happened to answer the phone that day.

The Bishop had not seen the pictures and he is describing only what he is told about one picture or pictures in general. Granted the Bishop called someone he is familiar with to ask but that doesn’t mean he meant for this officer(a captain) to cover anything up.

According to the following it was a church official that described the picture to the police officer not the Bishop.

There is more…

Copies of the image were made but the laptop was turned over to Ratigan’s family, who then destroyed the laptop, according to investigators. A church official in December described a single picture over the phone to a police officer, investigators have said.

 

[JimG]

.
A “rogue” priest?
What do you mean by that? Was the man an official priest serving in a parish in the same way other priests do, or no?

Apparently many parishioners testified that the priest was well-loved, trusted, and considered a friend by many.

.

I mean that he was an anomaly–a highly disturbed individual whose fixation on children came to light with this incident. He was serving in a parish until this incident, at which time the bishop removed him from parish work and placed him in a monastic setting and forbade him from dealing with children. But he did not heed those admonitions. Yes, indeed he was well loved, until it came to light that he had many boundary violations concerning children. This was reported by the principal of the parish school. She was a little worried about filing her report because the priest was, after all, her boss, the pastor. Her report ought to have been taken more seriously; it occured before the laptop photos were discovered.

The photos were discovered by a computer repairman. Ironically, if the repairman had gone immediately to the police, this fiasco might have been brought to a quicker resolution. But he was worried about his obligations to the diocese, thinking he should turn it over to them.

 

[robertmidwest]

I mean that he was an anomaly–a highly disturbed individual whose fixation on children came to light with this incident. He was serving in a parish until this incident, at which time the bishop removed him from parish work and placed him in a monastic setting and forbade him from dealing with children. But he did not heed those admonitions. Yes, indeed he was well loved, until it came to light that he had many boundary violations concerning children. This was reported by the principal of the parish school. She was a little worried about filing her report because the priest was, after all, her boss, the pastor. Her report ought to have been taken more seriously; it occured before the laptop photos were discovered.

The photos were discovered by a computer repairman. Ironically, if the repairman had gone immediately to the police, this fiasco might have been brought to a quicker resolution. But he was worried about his obligations to the diocese, thinking he should turn it over to them.

Now it’s a Fiasco? I thought Bishop Finn cleaned up the diocese?

 

[gam197]

This New York Times articles gives the facts on who did what.

Ms. Hess said that while she was inclined to believe that Father Ratigan’s behavior amounted to nothing more than “boundary violations,…

The Graves report said that the captain, Rick Smith, recalled being told by Monsignor Murphy that the diocese had found only one nude photograph, that it was of a member of Father Ratigan’s family, and that it was not a sexual pose. Monsignor Murphy said he did not remember telling the captain those things. Their recollections also differed on what the captain had said about whether the photograph constituted pornography.,

During this period, two women on staff in diocesan headquarters were urging their superiors to turn Father Ratigan in. Rebecca Summers, then the director of communications, told Monsignor Murphy to call the police, according to the testimony. And Julie Creech, the technology employee, said in a deposition in a related civil suit that she went to see Bishop Finn in his office to make sure he understood what she had seen on the laptop…

Some family members had heard that Father Ratigan’s laptop had contained pornography, Officer Blankenship said, but they assumed it was adult pornography taken off the Internet.,

On May 11, 2011, while Bishop Finn was out of town, Monsignor Murphy again contacted Captain Smith at the Police Department and told him that the diocese had indeed found not one, but hundreds of photographs of little girls,

nytimes.com/2012/09/08/us/in-pedophile-case-church-failed-to-stop-priest.html

The truth about the one picture that it was a family member may help explain some of the police officer’s response. But still, this officer’s behavior is questionable.

Another question needs to be answered, why was the family given the computer? Wouldn’t it become police evidence if it had not been destroyed?

The psychiatrist report didn’t help at all but Father Murphy did suggest a separate another opinion.

…

Ratigan went to Pennsylvania on Jan. 9 and returned Jan. 11. According to the report, Fitzgibbons later told Finn that Ratigan was not a pedophile but was suffering from loneliness and depression — caused in part, Fitzgibbons said, by the fact that the St. Patrick School principal was “out to get him.”

Several weeks later, Fitzgibbons asked for a copy of the pictures on Ratigan’s laptop, according to the report. The diocese’s attorney sent a CD by express mail, the report said.

bishop-accountability.org/news2011/11_12/2011_11_17_Rice_PsychiatristWho.htm

What?.

 

[JimG]

Now it’s a Fiasco? I thought Bishop Finn cleaned up the diocese?

The fiasco was the way this particular case was handled. It has nothing to do with the bishops attempts to restore orthodoxy to the diocese.

In reading the Graves report, I do not see evidence of an attempted cover up of anything. I see rather an attempt to decide what was appropriate to deal with this priest, who, as far as the bishop knew, was not guilty of child sexual abuse, but was accused of boundary violations. I see confusion on the part of a number of parties as to who should report what to whom. The vicar general, Fr. Murphy, did not refer the case to the review board because it did not seem to fall within their jurisdiction. Only one person examined the photos in detail, and everyone seemed to be waiting for someone else to make a decision. Any person, from the computer repairman to the bishop, could have picked up the phone at any time and referred the matter to the police. Even the police captain. But based on what he was told, he didn’t see any reason for criminal referral.

One can second guess all these actions, and the Graves report did outline how such cases ought to be handled in the future. Still, I would hesitate to refer something to the police if I was unsure that a crime had occurred. As I have mentioned before, there have been cases in other diocese where innocent priests were referred and convicted based on false allegations. I would hope that any bishop would not presumptively assume guilt on the part of his priests.

 

[robertmidwest]

The truth about the one picture that it was a family member may help explain some of the police officer’s response. But still, this officer’s behavior is questionable.

Another question needs to be answered, why was the family given the computer? Wouldn’t it become police evidence if it had not been destroyed?

They gave the laptop away because they were at best in denial and at worst engaging in a cover up.

The police officer was know to be friendly to the diocese and they clearly hand picked him to get the answer they wanted to hear.

 

[robertmidwest]

In reading the Graves report, I do not see evidence of an attempted cover up of anything.

The diocese paid for the Graves investigation. Do you really think they are going to come out and say “Yes the diocese is guilty of a cover up.”

No. They are going to use euphemism like “misguided decision”.

 

[JimG]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

The diocese paid for the Graves investigation. Do you really think they are going to come out and say “Yes the diocese is guilty of a cover up.”

No. They are going to use euphemism like “misguided decision”.

The Graves report was an independent investigation. The report states that everyone at the diocese cooperated fully. It is the most balanced evaluation of the situation that I have seen, and you recommended in a previous post that we read the Graves report. I concur. It is certainly a more comprehensive and balanced report than would could expect from the NY Times, NPR, or especially the Kansas City Star, all of which have a bias against the diocese. (I would note that Bill Donohue attempted to detail the facts in his own report, and offered to pay the Star $25,000 for a full page ad to print his report. The Star turned him down.)

The Graves report can be found here:

diocese-kcsj.org/_docs/8-31-11_Report_of_Independent_Investigation.pdf