KC priest pleads not guilty to child porn charges; Bishop Finn apologizes

[_Abyssinia]

Five months after officials of the Diocese of Kansas City - St. Joseph found disturbing images on the computer of Father Shawn Ratigan, the priest has pled not guilty to child pornography charges.

“In mid December of 2010, I was told that a personal computer belonging to Fr. Shawn Ratigan was found to have many images of female children,” Bishop Robert Finn said in a statement. “Most of these were images of children at public or parish events. I was told that there were also some small number of images that were much more disturbing, images of an unclothed child who was not identifiable because her face was not visible.”

“The very next day, we contacted a Kansas City, Missouri Police officer and described one of the more disturbing images,” Bishop Finn continued. “At the same time the diocese showed the images to legal counsel. In both instances we were told that, while very troubling, the photographs did not constitute child pornography as they did not depict sexual conduct or contact.”

Following recovery from a suicide attempt, the priest was permitted to celebrate Mass at a nuns’ chapel and not permitted to be near children.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10418

 

[mlund]

I think the chosen passage in the original post might be confusing. This is the important part:

Bishop Finn added:

When Shawn continued to disregard these requirements, on May 12 ,Vicar General Monsignor Robert Murphy contacted the same police officer previously consulted to discuss his concerns. That officer facilitated our report to the Cyber Crimes Against Children Unit. Along with our report we provided the electronic images that we had received in December. Detective Maggie McGuire began an investigation. In the past week she conducted interviews and, pursuant to a search warrant, found additional materials, which had never been in our possession and which we did not know existed, and which are alleged to constitute child pornography. On May 19, Shawn Ratigan was arrested and charged in Clay County with three counts of a C felony possession of child pornography. I deeply regret that we didn’t ask the police earlier to conduct a full investigation.

I think this next part is important to gain full perspective on what’s going on with the priest and the Diocese.

• Marty Lund

 

[RonRule]

NCR is reporting the police officer the diocese talked to worked on a diocesan committee.

Why only push for an investigation AFTER Fr. Ratigan broke some unrelated rules?

Let’s say the bishop didn’t look at the pictures and trusted his experts that they were not pornography. The fact that the priest then attempted suicide tells anyone involved that these are not the innocent photos of a pure-hearted priest. The Bishop knew this was a big problem and didn’t report it to an objective source until the priest proved disobedient 5 months later.

This is bad. Given the reports out so far, include the diocesan statement, I can’t see how the bishop’s actions are anything but a cover-up. I’m an orthodox Catholic in KC and have always been a big fan of Bp. Finn – until now.

 

[kmaaj]

This is bad. Given the reports out so far, include the diocesan statement, I can’t see how the bishop’s actions are anything but a cover-up. I’m an orthodox Catholic in KC and have always been a big fan of Bp. Finn – until now.

Does this mean that your allegiance to Bishop Finn is conditioned that he handle every single crisis with perfection?

As a candidate for reception into the Church in the KCMO area, and also very PROUD of how this diocese has handled these situations in the past, I am very disturbed by 2 things:

1. How quick the MoKan parishioners are to throw Bishop Finn under the bus,
2. How ready Bishop Finn is to take most of the blame. (I guess that comes with being a good leader)

Given the facts that he was given, and faced with the initial ineffectual response of the police, Bishop Finn did what any good head pastor is to do. If Fr. Ratigan had OBEYED his bishop, then we are not having this discussion.

 

[beckers]

NCR is reporting the police officer the diocese talked to worked on a diocesan committee.

Why only push for an investigation AFTER Fr. Ratigan broke some unrelated rules?

Let’s say the bishop didn’t look at the pictures and trusted his experts that they were not pornography. The fact that the priest then attempted suicide tells anyone involved that these are not the innocent photos of a pure-hearted priest. The Bishop knew this was a big problem and didn’t report it to an objective source until the priest proved disobedient 5 months later.

This is bad. Given the reports out so far, include the diocesan statement, I can’t see how the bishop’s actions are anything but a cover-up. I’m an orthodox Catholic in KC and have always been a big fan of Bp. Finn – until now.

I disagree. The dicoese took steps once it relazied that there were photos. They are not the ones to judge whether they are child porn are not. The gov’t has to do that. They turned over the records and let the police decide. They then put measures in to keep him from childern even without a conviction. Notice the diocese didn’t say “okay he is cleared” and let things go on like nothing was wrong nor did they run his name through the mud without proof. Instead they took a proactive response and moved him from childern and gave him limited facilites. They then kept up with the investigation and now the Gov’t got a search warrant and then found pictures that they believe warrant the charge. From my understanding of the facts the diocese should be applauded.

What would you have rathered they do??? Announce to the parish on the same day that they turned it over to the police? Run his name through the mud even though they didn’t kow exactly what they had in their hands?

Remember whether to bring charges is not a decision of the dicoese. If someone is stealing money for you and you have all the proof in the world it doesn’t matter. You have to give your infomation to the DA’s office and allow them to decide if they want to preceed with criminal charges. Its the State vs John Doe not the Diocese vs John Doe (as that would a civil suit).

Also, The diocese reported it to the police and asked their own legal counsel. Notice they didn’t ask their legal counsel first whether they believed it was porn or not and the legal ramafactions before they turned it over to the police. They turned it over to the police and worked on figuring out their own legal opinions. They were probaly working on what steps do we need to take to on further investigating, what steps do we need to take with the priest to keep it from happening again because if they let him continue in his position that could open a new can of liability…and i could go on an on questions you would discuss with your attorney’s. Its nothing something that should be seen in a negative light. Not knowing all the legal issues is why you employe in house counsel so you have people to turn to.

They also didn’t run the priest name through the mud without proof. They moved him and allowed him to still be a priest but made sure he didn’t have contact with childern.

After being told they didn’t have enough proof they continued their own investigation and when they were presented with more pictures they contacted the police again and this time the police found pictures they could charge him with.

If you want to be mad at the police for not proceeding that is one thing but don’t balme the diocese for reporting and trying to do what they are suppose to. They are not the civil deciders.

 

[CorinneV]

No the police are NOT the deciders in this case, the bishop is supposed to be a spiritual and moral leader. I am 100% sure that if I found a laptop belonging to someone in my family, and I found that it had nude or semi-nude photos of various children, I would be TELLING the police what to do, and if they did not get the message, I would be TELLING my lawyer what I wanted to have done to get the offender in custody and get the children protected. I would be TELLING the police to ensure that the children in the photos had not been molested.

We had a case of bullying in my extended family, and I was the instigator who TOLD the school, the police and our attorney to protect the victim, and it was effective. The bully was held accountable and chose to leave the school. None of the “responsible authorities” saw the big picture as clearly as I did. I HAD TO ADVOCATE for the victim.

The bishop’s response was not pastoral, it was bureacratic, and he has a lot of thinking to do. Sometimes COMMON SENSE has to overrule all of the rules and definitions. Laws and definitions of crimes are only an attempt to define all of the rotten things people mange to do to each other. Sometimes you have to figure it out for yourself, and Bishop Finn failed in this case.

Thank the dear Lord that there was no child who was being physically molested during the time period from December to May.

 

[beckers]

Not pastoral? He removed the priest from any contact with children and kept up the investigation after the cops denied it the first time. He was the decider as far as the church went because he made the decision to remove the priest. But the bishop can’t throw the man in jail! He is not the governments judge, jury and executioner!

Do you know how hard of a line it is to walk to not not destroy one person while trying to protect another? You should put yourself in the priest shoes and think how you would feel after your name has been destroyed and it turned out later it wasn’t true. It would always follow with you and you would be guilty. I believe from my understanding of the facts that the bishop tried to walk the line from ruining the priests name and giving a time for an investigation to occur And most importantly protecting any children.

Remember The bishop not only has a responsibility to the children but to his priest. He is not only their boss but their spiritual leader. We only know what was reported in the papers and not all the extra stuff. That will be for the mans trial.

You cant tell the police what to do. You can tell them you want to press charges But the DA is the one who decides whether there is enough evidence to support the charges and bring a conviction about. if not then they run the risk of a mistrial or an acquittal and then you run into issues of double jeopardy on re charging him for the crime. Our criminal justice runs a certain way and you have to work with the system.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

NCR is reporting the police officer the diocese talked to worked on a diocesan committee.

So? He’s still an officer sworn to uphold the law.

Why only push for an investigation AFTER Fr. Ratigan broke some unrelated rules?

Actually the rules are related in that its part of a bigger picture of troubling behavior that raises questions.

Let’s say the bishop didn’t look at the pictures and trusted his experts that they were not pornography. The fact that the priest then attempted suicide tells anyone involved that these are not the innocent photos of a pure-hearted priest.

Not necessarily. The stigma of even being accused of possession of child pornography is enough to destroy and ruin a priest even if he is 110% innocent. And I don’t think anyone thought the priest was “pure-hearted” but rather the question was whether he had broken the law and what his mental state was…

This is bad. Given the reports out so far, include the diocesan statement, I can’t see how the bishop’s actions are anything but a cover-up. I’m an orthodox Catholic in KC and have always been a big fan of Bp. Finn – until now.

Cover up is way too strong a description. Could things have been handled differently? Absolutely, there’s room for improvement here. But there’s nothing here that shows any attempt to evade the legal system.

 

[CorinneV]

I personally have never heard of any priest in my diocese (Toledo, Ohio) who was unjustly accused of an impropriety, such as possession of child pornography or molestation, and who suffered unjustly because of it. It is very unfortunate that many priests have been embarassed by the bad behavior of a few, this is very unjust and I have a lot of sympathy for all innocent priests. They sacrifice so much for us, and are betrayed by the unfaithful priests.
In the case of indecent photographs of a child, the first priority must be the protection of the child. If the diocese’s communication to the police did not result in an immediate investigation of the child’s condition, the diocese could have and should have pursued this case with the police until the safety of the children was assured. As part of the investigation, the police would need to identify who took the picture and how it appeared on Fr.Ratigan’s laptop. If the police refused to carry out their duty, the diocese should have pressed their civil rights, or pursued a civil case immediately.
The bishop is a human being who can make a mistake and so are the police. We all have to monitor each other, to assure that we all behave properly.
I think that matters in Kansas City and Philadelphia show us that our bishops still think in a bureaucratic way, and do not respond to these cases of sexual impropriety the way a parent would. I reiterate that laws and rules and policies cannot anticipate all of the bad things that a bishop may encounter, and he has to be ready to use common sense. Do what they know is right, not what the lawyers say when they read the policies.