Priest charged with possessing child porn

[ANNE_2]

Purposely viewing or participating in any kind of PORNOGRAPHY is a MORTAL SIN.

CCC - " 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices"

CCC - " 2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials."
.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

For starters, its hard to tell from the information in the article if the images are truly pornographic in and of themselves. Its rather vague on what kind of images these really are. It sounds as if the priest in question took pictures of children in public places which would not necessarily be considered pornorgaphy. However, when it comes to children IIRC the law also takes into account the intent of the images and not just their content.

The diocese was probably just trying to figure out what exactly it had on its hands before publicly ruining someone.

Everyone has focused their anger on the diocese for waiting. But what about the computer tech who found them? Why did he hand the laptop over to the diocese rather than the police? It seems no one quite knew if the images violated the law.

All that being said, it makes zero sense that the diocese handed the laptop over the family. If it was going to give copies to the police, why not just give them the originals?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Bishop releases statement on priest’s charges

Bishop Robert W. Finn responded Friday, explaining his and the diocese’s actions in the case and apologizing.

“I deeply regret that we didn’t ask the police earlier to conduct a full investigation,” Finn said.

Finn said he first contacted Kansas City police in December about the matter.

“At the same time the diocese showed the images to legal counsel,” Finn said in his statement. “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.”

…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.”

According to court documents, on May 16, a St. Joseph, Mo., church where Ratigan had previously worked provided a desktop computer to detectives and more pornographic images were discovered.

Apparently, the initial images did not constitute child pornography. However they were troubling enough the diocese banned the priest from contact with children while they figured out what to do with him. He continually violated the restrictions placed on him and the diocese then asked the police to conduct a full investigation. It was after this full investigation that the police found legally definable child pornography.

 

[Cider]

Important correction to post 1. The Bishop reported the priest to the police the very next day and also provided them with the picture. The police advised the Bishop that this did NOTconstitute child pornography. The Bishop also consulted his lawyers, who advised him the same. In other words, there was no prosecutable offense.

However the bishop decided even if they did not have enough evidence to pursue an actual criminal charge, the computer files and the subsequent emotionally unstable behavior of the priest warranted getting him away from children immediately, which was done and which the priest agreed to. A few months later the priest broke his agreement and went to a child’s party at the invitation of a parish parent (sometimes you have to wonder is some of the blame rests with parents, why do none of them ever report these abuse cases?).

This unexpected lack of obedience by the priest (you would think a suicide attempt would indicate repentence, but this is a mental illness), prompted the bishop to immediately RE-CONTACT (2nd time) the police and ask if there was anything they could do to look into the matter. The police then took over, search warrant and their efforts leading to the arrest.

Seems to me this bishop did everything he could as info became available, especially considering the first time he was going by the police and attorneys own advice of whether a crime was committed.

Where did you get this information, because it wasn’t in the article posted in the OP.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Where did you get this information, because it wasn’t in the article posted in the OP.

Post #23 contains a link to the Bishop’s statement that contains those claims…

 

[dixieagle]

Important correction to post 1. The Bishop reported the priest to the police the very next day and also provided them with the picture. The police advised the Bishop that this did NOTconstitute child pornography. The Bishop also consulted his lawyers, who advised him the same. In other words, there was no prosecutable offense.

Not entirely true; there was ONE image shown to ONE police officer and diocesan lawyer in December, though there were multiple images found on the computer by the computer repairman who first reported this. The “police” were not officially contacted until mid-May, and for this the bishop has apologized: “I deeply regret that we didn’t ask the police earlier to conduct a full investigation,” Finn said.

examiner.net/features/x1950126458/Bishop-releases-statement-on-priest-s-charges

Clearly, at least this bishop is still tone-deaf and doesn’t get it. Report to the proper authority (not one friendly policeman) immediately (there is NO WAY that photos taken up little girls’ skirts is not perverted) and be completely forthcoming. Period.

 

[dixieagle]

It seems to me that the photographs were taken in public places, picturing the children’s regular everyday activities. To call them pornographic is sick.

Also I see no proof, that the photographs were taken by the priest, and not put there by someone else

Also the priest was immediately separated from any contact with children.

The proper world is witch-hunt for this case.

??? It is normal behavior to take - and have on your computer - photos taken up little girls skirts???

 

[valentino]

Chile pornography in the the US is dealth with very harshly.

As this article points out, draconian measures are applied to the child porn producer as well as the surfer.

I think it’s important to take that stance otherwise, it would be more rampant than it is now.

It didn’t say that he published or spread the pictures only that he had them.I never ok this as i don’t ok any sin but I think we are stretching a bit to make this out to be some terrible crime.Child pornography is rampant now.Many children all over are in sold into this by parents or kidnapped or coercered to participate in pornography.IMO what this priest did no way qualifies with the behavior you’re referring to.In comparison its like a person looking at children in magazines posing in underwear commercials to a person who tapes children performing sex acts and tries to sell them.I would call what this priest did a daily occurence done by many people everyday.it just because he"s a priest that this issue was singled out.Since this society of our is becooming so secular and against christian principles(especially Catholic principles)it wants to show how corrupt religion is and most especially how corrupt the Catholic Church is.Remember the Catholic Church is still looked upon as the moral authority everywhere.

 

[valentino]

Purposely viewing or participating in any kind of PORNOGRAPHY is a MORTAL SIN.

CCC - " 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices"

CCC - " 2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials."
.

Yes,and it a mortal sin to look at a woman with lust.Why don’t we arrest alll these violators?Should you ever have been arrested?This priest did none of those things if that is truelly your view of pornography.The only thing they saw was soome pictures of some children at his school in positions where their underwear was exposed.and also one naked child.THis should never have made news at least from what we know about it so far.

 

[dixieagle]

Yes,and it a mortal sin to look at a woman with lust.Why don’t we arrest alll these violators?Should you ever have been arrested?This priest did none of those things if that is truelly your view of pornography.The only thing they saw was soome pictures of some children at his school in positions where their underwear was exposed.and also one naked child.THis should never have made news at least from what we know about it so far.

Seriously??? (bolding mine)

 

[garysibio]

Has anyone else noticed that almost the only time crimes commited by clergy are brought to light is when they are commited by Roman Catholic Priests?

Not true. I have seen many reports of Protestant clergy committing similar crimes but, if a Catholic is involved, they do seem to get more coverage.

 

[garysibio]

It is particularly disturbing that the diocese (Kansas City - St. Joseph, MO) waited for 5 months before reporting what it had discovered to the police. Do they never learn???

kansascity.com/2011/05/19/2888348/priest-charged-with-possessing.html#storylink=misearch

I work at the rectory of a parish in Chicago. Tomorrow I have to go take a class in the VIRTUS program which is supposed to tell me what I should not do. Anyone who has watched more than three episodes of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit knows that it is a federal crime to possess child pornography yet the Kansas City/St. Joseph diocese had to consult a freakin’ lawyer to figure this out. I’m sorry. They cannot be that stupid. They were trying to make this go away.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Anyone who has watched more than three episodes of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit knows that it is a federal crime to possess child pornography yet the Kansas City/St. Joseph diocese had to consult a freakin’ lawyer to figure this out. I’m sorry. They cannot be that stupid. They were trying to make this go away.

What the diocese had its hands on did not legally constitute child pornography. Legally defined child pornography was discovered later on by the police department on another computer.

 

[garysibio]

What the diocese had its hands on did not legally constitute child pornography. Legally defined child pornography was discovered later on by the police department on another computer.

To quote from the original article:

“The diocese initiated the investigation by turning over the images that we had obtained to the KCPD, which prompted a broader investigation,” said Rebecca Summers, diocese spokeswoman.

If the images the diocese had were not illegal, why did they turn them over to the police and why did the police investigate? Why did it take the diocese 6 months? Yes, the police were able to expand the investigation since they could obtain warrants if they could show a good reason for doing so. The diocese had to have pornographic images in their possession for 6 months.

 

[laszlo]

If the images the diocese had were not illegal, why did they turn them over to the police and why did the police investigate? Why did it take the diocese 6 months? Yes, the police were able to expand the investigation since they could obtain warrants if they could show a good reason for doing so. The diocese had to have pornographic images in their possession for 6 months.

I do not believe that my county is the worst in the US. In every week there are pederast cases, not priest, teachers, your leaders, parents. Most of the are reported months later, and more than half of them is declaring innocence, or at least does no charge the accused one with crime.

What could be the reason, that Catholics immediately turn against the Church, is a priest is accused? Why cant we wait presuming innocence until the case is closed at the court of law?

 

[dixieagle]

I do not believe that my county is the worst in the US. In every week there are pederast cases, not priest, teachers, your leaders, parents. Most of the are reported months later, and more than half of them is declaring innocence, or at least does no charge the accused one with crime.

What could be the reason, that Catholics immediately turn against the Church, is a priest is accused? Why cant we wait presuming innocence until the case is closed at the court of law?

It has nothing to do with turning against “the Church”; this instance has to do with being disgusted that a priest - a man who is “in persona Christi” - was caught with thoroughly inappropriate photos of innocent children on his computer.

 

[valentino]

Do you have children?

ONe daughter.

 

[jfmarm81]

This incident is taking place in a diocese I am familiar with. The secular media here has misrepresented the story to a degree. What the diocese found in December was told to them by police and lawyers that it was not child porn. In spite of this, the bishop ordered the priest to have no further contact with children. The priest was found to have disobeyed this order recently, and the police were then called in again. The police searched another computer and found actual pornography. I think the bishop was proactive in keeping this priest in seculsion because he could not have been charged with anything based on the december evidence. Anyway, I don’t really want to spark a debate or fight, but I used to live in the diocese so have heard alot of what has gone on. The media here has made it seem like another case of Catholic scandal but there is a bit more to the story than that…

 

[valentino]

Are you seriously suggesting that stealing $200 worth of clothes is somehow comparable to a paedophile who photographs small children.

There is a difference. I’d only beat one of those criminals to death with my bare hands.

Maybe I should explain myself.I suppose in most cases a person who watches child pornography(especially if he does so ofteN)Is in real trouble.It becomes sort of an addiction and can lead to far graver sins.we all no that watching any kind of pornography is probably mortal sin(because one masturbates most likely,ect.)But we also know that people can control themselves enough not to masturbated(say he’s a married man)and they don’t always lead to rape or other things.I’m saying it possible that this priest may go no farther than masturbation and never touch a child.I know its wrong but maybe he can through prayer get over this particular sin.That’s all I’m saying.You can tell me I’m not being logical but I still say its possible.read some of the other posts and you might not think so bad of this priest.

 

[dixieagle]

This incident is taking place in a diocese I am familiar with. The secular media here has misrepresented the story to a degree. What the diocese found in December was told to them by police and lawyers that it was not child porn. In spite of this, the bishop ordered the priest to have no further contact with children. The priest was found to have disobeyed this order recently, and the police were then called in again. The police searched another computer and found actual pornography. I think the bishop was proactive in keeping this priest in seculsion because he could not have been charged with anything based on the december evidence. Anyway, I don’t really want to spark a debate or fight, but I used to live in the diocese so have heard alot of what has gone on. The media here has made it seem like another case of Catholic scandal but there is a bit more to the story than that…

As the bishop himself has apologized for not having gone to the proper authorities back in December (one policeman and a lawyer were shown only one photo) I think it’s safe to assume that even he knows he booted it.

I find it disturbing that there are still those who try to split hairs so that a priest having taken photos up the skirts of little girls doesn’t sound as bad as it is.