The diocese commissioned the report (they wroted the check, they picked who they wanted to write the report). Would you expect them to say anything different? They want the check to clear. That has to be considered when reading it.[SIGN][/SIGN] The Graves report was an independent investigation. The report states that everyone at the diocese cooperated fully.
The Graves report can be found here:
diocese-kcsj.org/_docs/8-31-11_Report_of_Independent_Investigation.pdf
I don’t think the repair man was Catholic.Ahhh. When you said “rogue priest” I got the idea that he was already acting off-kilter–a renegade priest teaching unorthodox doctrine in the parish.
So the “rogue” part wasn’t related to his performance in his official priest capacity…but his other, disturbing fixation. Right?
Coincidence that the repairman was also Catholic. But this is how so many horrifying abuses continued in the past…when people have not gone directly to the police.
It’s one of the big procedures that has been changed, I trust.
.
My statement here is wrong. I just reread another article. He was born and raised Catholic.I don’t think the repair man was Catholic.
Maybe I used the wrong word. By “rogue” I simply meant that he was an aberration, and it was actually related to his official duties as pastor of a parish. Because it was in the parish that the principal of the school noticed his strange behavior with the children, which was not sufficient to be reported as child abuse, but was concerning to her. She was reluctant to confront the priest directly because he was her boss, and because the priest was saying that she was “out to get him.” If you really want to get the details of the case, read the Graves report, but it is long.Ahhh. When you said “rogue priest” I got the idea that he was already acting off-kilter–a renegade priest teaching unorthodox doctrine in the parish.
So the “rogue” part wasn’t related to his performance in his official priest capacity…but his other, disturbing fixation. Right?
Coincidence that the repairman was also Catholic. But this is how so many horrifying abuses continued in the past…when people have not gone directly to the police.
It’s one of the big procedures that has been changed, I trust.
.
The Graves Report,My statement here is wrong. I just reread another article. He was born and raised Catholic.
My understanding is the Bishop Finn never saw the computer or the images. Other people were trying to handle this, but not very well.The Graves Report,
Deeply concerned, he first sought the advice of his brother. Over the telephone, his brother advised him to take the computer to the Grandview Police Department. A second brother said the same. His pastor at Crosspoint Baptist Church was in accord. Finally, Mr. Kes called his wife. She advised him that under his contract with the parish he was to return all property, and was concerned that if he did not return the computer he might be sued. Mr. Kes decided to return the computer to St. Patrick’s. After receiving Mr. Kes’ call that he had found some disturbing pictures and was returning the computer, Gidge Wurzer informed Deacon Lewis. When Mr. Kes arrived bearing the computer, she directed him into Deacon Lewis’s office
He was a baptist now.
What concerns me is that Bishop Finn gave the laptop to Fr. Ratigan’s brother. I would think he would have known to keep it.
I suppose he may have felt that they had copied the images but still.
That afternoon, Msgr. Murphy called Capt. Smith and told him that although aMy understanding is the Bishop Finn never saw the computer or the images. Other people were trying to handle this, but not very well.
Bishop Finn told the Firm that he was surprised because he had been under the impression that the police had already seen and appraised the photographsWhat concerns me is that Bishop Finn gave the laptop to Fr. Ratigan’s brother. I would think he would have known to keep it.
I suppose he may have felt that they had copied the images but still.
Not sure if he ever saw the images as it was Msgr. Murphy who handled it with a few other. There was miscommunication going on.My understanding is the Bishop Finn never saw the computer or the images. Other people were trying to handle this, but not very well.
Msgr. Murphy informed Paula Moss, Bishop Finn, Chancellor Offutt and Rebecca Summers that he had consulted with the police and Jon Haden and that the pictures,althoughdisturbing didnot* constitute child pornography.,
Page 97 of the Graves report.At a much later meeting in late May 2011 after Fr. Ratigan’s arrest, all four individuals indicated that they believed Msgr. Murphy had actually shown the picture to Capt. Smith or another police officer. However, it is clear that only Mr. Haden, and not Capt. Smith, viewed the images.
This is one of the times you have to take into consideration the the Graves report was commissioned and paid for by the diocese. They are not going to bite the hand that feeds them.Not sure if he [Finn] ever saw the images as it was Msgr. Murphy who handled it with a few other. There was miscommunication going on.
The line of reasoning from the report is that Finn was mislead by Murphy about the police actually having seen the pics. Look at the footnote on page 107. If the police had truly seen the pics and concluded they were not criminal then there were no real reason to keep it. I think, but am not sure, that the laptop was Ratigan’s personal property and not owned by the diocese.I am still not sure why Bishop Finn would have given this laptop to his brother.
I know the Bishop is a very busy man and many of us have watched too many TV shows. Property or not of the diocese, why not call the police and make sure? I know he felt that there was no case and it was settled but still so many people were concerned. Did he think they were all misguided?The line of reasoning from the report is that Finn was mislead by Murphy about the police actually having seen the pics. Look at the footnote on page 107. If the police had truly seen the pics and concluded they were not criminal then there were no real reason to keep it. I think, but am not sure, that the laptop was Ratigan’s personal property and not owned by the diocese.
Again who read this letter if Bishop Finn did not?Link to the letter written by school principal:
drive.google.com/file/d/0B2HfheOzQfp5YzQ2MjhjZTItNDE5Yi00NzZkLTljNDctNDVjZmQxNjhiN2E0/view?pli=1
Bishop still claims to this day that he never read the letter.Again who read this letter if Bishop Finn did not?
As I said, I understand why families are angry. What will it take until they realize that families mean business and they are just trying to protect the young.
You mean it’s not just a bunch of “liberals” out to get the Bishop?As I said, I understand why families are angry.
I saw a picture of SNAP and it is one group, I do not like. They came to the parish I had gotten married in during the priest scandals in Boston and this parish did not even have a case.You mean it’s not just a bunch of “liberals” out to get the Bishop?