In my recent post, “What About the Rest of Bishop Finn’s Story”, I discussed the ideological and political dimensions of last week’s resignation of Bishop Robert Finn of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph. The motivation for the public relations campaign against Bishop Finn was clearly stated by former diocesan chancellor Jude Huntz when he told the National Catholic Reporter:
“This isn’t just about sex abuse. This is about a whole lot of other things that are ideological.”
And Mr. Huntz should know. Now the Director of the Office for Peace and Justice for Archbishop Cupich in Chicago, he has been an oft quoted source in the coverage of this story by the National Catholic Reporter (see here and here).
Indeed, the diocese has been front and center for many of the destructive ideological battles which have plagued the post-conciliar Church. As home to the National Catholic Reporter, those in positions of influence in the diocese have often spent decades promoting a “spirit of Vatican II” agenda. The arrival of an orthodox, tradition friendly, bishop ten years ago was a seismic event that shook heterodox constructs decades in the making.
Just this past weekend the Secretary for Seminarians in the Vocations Office of the diocese, Fr. Gregory Lockwood, discussed the environment that greeted Bishop Finn upon his arrival in 2005. In addition to his work in the Vocations Office, Father is the parochial administrator of Christ the King parish. In a truly remarkable letter written to his parishioners, Fr. Lockwood discussed the ecclesial landscape in Kansas City in the post-conciliar years. His words are unusually candid and obviously heartfelt:
For years before the bishop’s arrival, there had been in place a bleak outlook on the future shape of the church, a church without many priests, a church run “out of necessity” by laypeople, lay administrators, with priests as the sacramental suppliers, not leaders. It was said a lack of vocations was the reason for the new organizational principles adopted here, but, in fact, the lack of vocations was self-inflicted. Certain radicalized theologians and catechetical experts after the council had predicted a priest-less church, and some labored to bring this to fruition . In the ’90’s in our diocese we sometimes had less than 5 seminarians in any given year, and this reality was used to prop up the idea that the post-Vatican II church was meant to be a new church, with a new organizational chart.
Bishop Finn, as most modern, younger bishops after the council, decisively rejected this depressive scenario, put much less money into programs established for the bleak future, and, instead, put money and resources into the development of priestly vocations, and we have seen the result. We will have 10 new priests in all this fiscal year, and have many in the past several years. Though we will ordain so many, we have more men applying right now than the number we’re ordaining.
Father Lockwood goes on to explain what has lead to the current surge in priestly vocations in Kansas City over the past several years:
People complain that these young priest candidates are conservative, and that we in the Vocations Office are recruiting only conservative seminarians. This is untrue. Fr. Rocha and I in the last four years of working together have never had an ideological litmus test for incoming students. What is true is that service in the church, dating back into the early ’90’s, when I first began my career as a seminary professor, was attractive to young men who loved the church, knew she was 2000 years old, loved her traditions and teachings, and hadn’t grown up in the ’60’s time of turmoil. In other words, they were not, as a group, like their elders. And, as the men in my generation, they are allowed to be who they are. The vocations truly, were always there. The lack was in my generation’s insistence that the young men hold the same ideologies as we did. I saw many a young man turned away from the seminary in the early days for not having the “correct” leanings and attitudes. May God have mercy on us for our hubris and over-weaning pride.
That so much of the Bishop Finn story is about ideology and not criminal neglect was further demonstrated late last week. Upon his appointment by Rome as the apostolic administrator for Kansas City-St. Joseph, Archbishop Joseph Naumann held a lengthy meeting with over 100 priests of the diocese. One major issue of contention for some in attendance: pastoral assignments made by Bishop Finn just days before his resignation. As reported by the NCR:
During the meeting, several priests asked the archbishop to reconsider the appointments — specifically those to Visitation Church and St. Thomas More Parish, both in Kansas City and two of the diocese’s largest parishes — but Naumann told them that he prayed over the decisions and ultimately chose to let them stand.
Veterans of both sides of the ideological battles in Kansas City understand the vital role the parish priest plays in restoring orthodoxy and authenticity. These pastoral assignments will bear fruit over time. Moves such as these, however, also engender enemies from among the business as usual crowd. Fr. Lockwood discusses this as well in his letter:
“Those who are celebrating now began their work long ago, not because of the Ratigan case, but because Bishop Finn rejected their view of church reality. He was an “arch-conservative,” “pre-Vatican II,” “trying to take us back to the medieval church,” all these bits of nonsense that covered up the real truth: Post-conciliar ego and pride, the belief that we finally knew more than those thousands of saints who had gone before us, had led to the destruction of much of our church, the loss of clergy and religious, compromise with the world, especially in moral matters, the endangering of our families and children, and our own spiritual bankruptcy. The “Springtime of the Church of Vatican II” has never come, because we, in our smug superiority, had severed our connection with our past and Catholic Tradition. The tree cannot flower without its roots intact.”
Fr. Lockwood continues:
“One of the most disturbing things I have seen in my years as a priest is the glee and meanness of many of our brothers and sisters in the aftermath of Bishop Finn’s resignation. Champagne corks popped, celebrations begun, more mean and vicious things said by people whose Lord Jesus said to them, “Love one another.” There is no forbearance or forgiveness for this man who plead no contest to a politically motivated charge filed by an ambitious prosecutor with strong ties to the abortion industry, so that he might save his local church the pain and cost of a public trial. The statute used was not even applicable to what happened, but such is our legal and political society. He is a man who loves and cherishes children, and would never for one minute hazard them for any reason…But the outrage of many was managed by the designs of a few, and here we are.”
[…]
“If any good is to come of this, it must come from the grace of God in the humble hearts of His faithful children. Let us learn the lessons again from Christ who is meek and humble of heart. His yoke is easy and His burden light. Let us not take upon ourselves the heavy yoke of hate and spite; they, in the end, are too much for us to bear without us losing everything the Lord wishes to give us. May God’s peace give us clean and humble hearts.”
In the coming days and weeks as the resignation of Bishop Finn fades from the headlines, remember the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph in your prayers. Those who see this as a victory are now emboldened. Archbishop Naumann, Fr. Gregory Lockwood and many other good and faithful priests will need our spiritual support.
Brian, read this book. “The Call to Ministry: The Vision of Bishop John J. Sullivan.” http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Call_to_Ministry.html?id=zk85akrk5lYC He was our Grand Island diocese bishop for 5 years. His thoroughly ambiguous and poisonous “vision” decimated vocations and religious orders in Grand Island and has never recovered. He stirred up the presbyterate here but there was a near revolt in KC-SJ. I believe this is the starting point of all the heterodox attitudes and visceral reaction to Bishop Finn. The perfect seedbed for all things anti-catholic like NCR
Sullivan is an important figure in all this, J.B. He was one of the most formidable and aggressively liberal of the “Jadot Bishops,” and the fact that the Diocese of KC-SJ is so thoroughly liberal is in no small part his achievement.
But what’s more striking is Sullivan’s role in Fr. Lockwood’s own parish, Christ the King, back in 1979-81, when it was the last tradition-friendly holdout. Sullivan crushed it ruthlessly, far more so than anything Bishop Finn has done, as those who have read Michael Davies’ history of this tragic episode, “The Barbaraians Have Taken Over,” will know: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=847
Thanks for the additional background. I am not sure our diocese, which is a mission, can survive anymore liberal onslaught. Heterodoxy is rampant.
J.B.,
Yes, I understand that your previous ordinary had a…er, spectacular record with vocations.
Not sure what to suggest, other than to pray, and move to Lincoln.
Don’t think that that hasn’t been discussed. I have several family members there and we have 2 kids at UNL at the rock-solid St. Thomas More Newman Center (the new “basilica”). Constant rosaries, masses, etc. going up. New bishop now and hoping for the best. We’ll see.
I know that moving is easier said than done…
But it is remarkable just how different the paths of these two diocese in Nebraska have been. Bishops make a great difference, for good or ill. Lincoln has had three very good ones in a row. Grand Island, well…
Our diocese has been heading in the direction of Lincoln with Bishop Finn.
He often went to St. Gregory the Great Seminary there, and have little doubt that he is close to the great Bishop Bruskewitz and now Bishop Conley there. They are very orthodox, and thus have a great record with vocations.
Was this the Msgr Carney issue at Christ the King? I grow up in the hetrodox St. Francis Xavier parish run by Jesuits and adjacent to Rockhurst College. I still cringe when I think back on those early 1970s Masses. I now under stand why my father looked for opportunities to go to mass at Old St. Patricks and eventually stopped going to Mass after the kids graduated from high school In the 80s. He was just one of the many souls lost to the “spirit of Vatican II”. And I also understand why my next door neighbors attended St. Peter’s in the adjacent parish. So much I didn’t understand of the liberalization KC-SJ diocese during my formative years. Pray that all bishops will be orthodox and bring the people back to the one true faith.
Hello Tim,
The details are in the Angelus link at the bottom of my post. You may be thinking of Msgr Vincent Kearney (note spelling), who was suddenly sacked by Bishop Sullivan without warning, required to leave the parish with no notice, and was never given another assignment. Kearney had adhered to a very traditional implementation of the New Mass, and declined to make any wreckovation of the sanctuary, and in this he was supported zealously by his parishioners (who were growing in numbers, in contrast to the shrinkage at work in most diocesan parishes). For Sullivan and his officials, this was unacceptable. Sullivan dismissed Christ the King parishioners pleading to keep some liturgical and artistic tradition in the parish as “religious illiterates.”
So it is interesting that things have come full circle. Christ the King is once again, arguably, the most traditional parish (outside the ICK Oratory) in the diocese, with traditional Masses help multiple times per week.
Thanks for the clarification. I was just starting HS when this broke and didn’t understand the issue at the time.
P.S. Not a surprise that, not long before his death, Fr. Richard McBrien listed Sullivan as one of his favorite American bishops during his lifetime.
Says it all. What a disaster.
This article begs the question without arguing for the premise, i.e., that conservatives wanted him in, and liberals wanted him out. But I don’t buy it.
I’m a straight-up traditionalist who for the most part supports Finn’s ecclesiology. But that’s why I wanted him out, not in. I don’t want an internationally ignominious bishop with a criminal record speaking for my cause. When a champion for a cause is morally compromised, his cause is compromised by association. I’d rather have no advocate than one who taints my brand.
Yes, Nick, we have seen your many posts in the Star trashing Bishop Finn. You so enjoy calling Bishop Finn a “criminal.” You are filling the role as a propagandist just as the fraudulent prosecutor of Bishop Finn had hoped for. She just wanted 1 misdemeanor charge to stick so that Bishop Finn haters could claim he was a criminal, knowing that the leftist media(KC Star) would go along and pile on.
If Bishop Finn is a criminal(which he is not) then I am a criminal for recently getting a speeding ticket on my way to Mass after work.
“…for the most part supports Finn’s ecclesiology?” That means you could support 51 percent. If you were really a supporter of Bishop Finn, you would have sympathy for a good man persecuted. He did nothing wrong. There was no case against him. The normal reply to that from Bishop Finn haters is that he was “convicted.” There have been many saintly people throughout history wrong “convicted” by zealous opponents regardless of facts.
Please don’t waste any more of your time or ours telling us that you have been a supporter of Bishop Finn.
“He did nothing wrong.”
Your response is so witless that of all the responses to my “many posts in the Star trashing Bishop Finn,” yours is the most easily laughed off.
I’ll chuckle for a couple minutes over this one. 😀
Arrogance anyone.
You’d have rejected Paul of Tarsus then.
Let me get this straight… You’re saying that because Finn is ignominious and because Paul of Tarsus was also ignominious, that means they must both be visionary leaders?
So by logical extension, that means that every ignominious criminal is just as prophetic and divinely inspired as Paul of Tarsus? Is that really your argument?
Bless your heart.
“When a champion for a cause is morally compromised, his cause is compromised by association. I’d rather have no advocate than one who taints my brand.”
Your argument rests on the premise Bishop Finn was “morally compromised”, damaged the “brand” and, therefore should go. Plus, its a pragmatic, public relations argument and not a moral one.
Finn was morally compromised;
Paul of Tarsus was morally compromised;
Finn should go because he damages the ‘brand’;
Paul should not have been accepted because he could damage the ‘brand’.
Our faith is more than a “brand”. Do you know how many sinners are heroes of the Church?
“This article assumes a premise without arguing for it—i.e., that conservatives wanted him in, and liberals wanted him out. But I don’t buy it.”
Are you that naïve? Do some reading around the criticism of Bishop Finn on “progressive” sites.
Bless your “traditional” cotton socks.
St. Paul didn’t hide sexual predators.
That’s simply an unfair assertion. The bishop may well have been expected to take more drastic action sooner, but he hardly hid a predator.
The details as laid out here by veteran Missouri attorney Michael Quinlan do not even support the assertion that the law was breached. You’re exaggerating the Bishop’s guilt, along with his culpability, especially considering how many of the particulars were handled by Msgr. Murphy.
http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=4332
I’ve been reading all of your comments, and I sense an unstated bias. Since these stories on Finn are the only things you’ve seen fit to comment on here at 1P5, I suspect that’s not wrong. I’d like to know more about your axe, and why you’re choosing to grind it.
Hid a predator is exactly what he did. In a convent, out of sight. And then in a psychiatric facility, out of state.
My bias is not “unstated.” No, it is undisguised and unabashed: I am biased against bishops who protect predator priests instead of children. I am biased against bishops who compromise the Church’s moral credibility and diminish Her capacity to save souls. I am biased against the criminal, Robert Finn.
“St. Paul didn’t hide sexual predators.”
No, and neither did Bishop Finn. All St. Paul did was to murder the first Christian martyr and persecute the early Church.
“[N]either did Bishop Finn.”
This is why I can’t take you seriously. Everyone in any qualified position of authority, including the pope, has held Finn to account for his wrongdoing, yet still you and Finn’s small band of ideologues cry foul.
I’ll trust my Church on this one.
You’ve not defended your assertion that Bishop Finn hid a sexual predator. He didn’t.
Once Bishop Finn was convicted of this offence the chances of him remaining in office were negligible to zero. Not because he was unsuitable for office but because, as you pointed out, he “damaged the brand” and was exposed and open to attack.
Do you know Pope Francis’s reasons for accepting this resignation?
All I know is that, despite your endless rationalizations, your contortions, your justifications, your aggrieved moaning, Finn is out. And that warms my cockles.
1 Corinthians 13:6.
You sound like Caiphas.
There should be nothing about this that “warms the cockles” of your heart, whether Finn is guilty or innocent. Just because the law found him guilty certainly doesn’t make him so. (Just ask all the people arguing against the Church’s traditional teaching on the death penalty. They love trotting out stories of innocent men convicted.)
I also find it interesting that you trust the judgment of the same pope who appointed this man, and has kept him there despite aggressive protests over his allegedly active engagement in sexual predation after being mentored by a monstrous abuser:
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/03/21/amid-arrests-and-protests-bishop-linked-to-abuser-priest-takes-over-in-chile/
And the bishops conference? Surely you don’t claim traditional bona fides and reference the judgment of the USCCB. Their oversight of CRS and the Campaign for Human Development has been an example of one sanctioned moral depravity after another.
Your arguments, again, read like smokescreens for an agenda. What is it?
This pope didn’t appoint him. If you don’t have a handle on the basic facts of this case, then I’m not really interested in talking to you. Go get your facts straight, then maybe come back to the big boy table.
You’ve fallen into one of two classic blunders: the first is insulting the man with his hand on the “delete” button; the second, and only slightly less well known, is failing to read the actual comment: I said the pope appointed “this man” and then, following the use of the punctuation mark known as a colon (feel free to Google its purpose), LINKED TO AN ARTICLE ABOUT BARROS IN CHILE.
It speaks to Pope Francis’s judgment of character that he put a man who has been accused of covering for predators and also watching children be sexually victimized by those same predators in charge of diocese over mass protests.
And yet you want us to simply defer. Because he’s the pope. That worked out very well with Pope John Paul II and Fr. Maciel, didn’t it?
Happily, nothing you do has any consequence in this matter whatsoever. Whether you “defer” or not doesn’t matter a whit, nor does the perverse sense of power the “delete” button gives you, nor does your penchant for Princess Brideisms.
Delete away. The real world in which justice has already been served is vastly preferable to this virtual one full of aggrieved ideologues shouting into the darkness.
None of which explains why you can’t read, or why your arguments are so full of pride and self-congratulatory rhetoric, even when you’re losing every. single. one.
As for your preference for the real world, you’ve spent quite a bit of time here wallowing in pixels with the rest of us plebes. Interesting dichotomy, that. Just dove into the muck to gloat, did you?
Sometimes I like to fancy myself capable of helping ideologues to see past their own grievances and to accept the world as it really is. Clearly I overestimated my own abilities.
“Clearly I overestimated my own abilities.”
In multiple respects, yes, I’d say that’s accurate.
Despite my shortcomings, it’s good to know that sh*tty bishops still get cast into the outer darkness, despite the protestations of their fundamentalist bootlickers.
“…you’re losing every. single. one.”
Your poster boy resigned in disgrace, but you still think you’re winning the argument. You’re just too precious for words.
I’d like to thank you, Nickelodeon, for outing yourself as a troll. It makes it that much easier to dismiss you.
There you go then. You hold onto those warmed cockles of yours.
And Jack has ripped everyone of your assertions and false premises apart. It’s you who has been squirming and wriggling around and shifting your argument.
If that’s how you think this conversation went down, then it’s no wonder your perception of the Finn case is so distorted. Suddenly I understand you much better.
You’re a fan of the Black Knight, aren’t you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
You sure you’re actually a Catholic and not a member of the Westboro Baptists?
“It’s you who has been squirming and wriggling around and shifting your argument.”
Your poster boy resigned in disgrace, but you still think you’re winning the argument. You’re just too precious for words.
Bishop Finn was orthodox, who stirred up the ire of liberals, and did many good things. However his moral failure in handling this sexual abuse case meant he had to go. It was only just that he loose his office. He acted in such an egregious, scandalous, and disgusting manner throughout the whole affair. It is only right that we expect our bishops to be holy and Bishop Finn couldn’t even act as a decent human being. The indefensible:
1. After seeing that there were hundreds of pornographic
images on the laptop, Bishop Finn did not contact the police. Some of the
chancery employees advised Finn to call the police immediately, and he did not.
It took almost six months for the diocese to contact the police.
2. Bishop Finn made no attempt to identify the victims or
seek out their families.
3. Bishop Finn sends Fr. Ratigan to a Vincentian Retreat
Center that is visited by school groups. Where there is access to children.
Finn placed restrictions on Ratigan, but the Vincentians told the independent
investigation, that they were not informed of them and did not know the scope
of Ratigan’s depravity. Bishop Finn allows Fr. Ratigan to say Mass for the
school groups.
4. Bishop Finn does not turn over the laptop to police as
Msgr. Murphy’s policeman friend told them to do, when the policeman was told
the truth of there being hundreds of photographs. Bishop Finn gives the laptop
to Fr. Ratigan’s brother instead. Fr. Ratigans’s brother then destroys the
laptop.
5. Bishop Finn then spends 1.4 million of the diocese money
in defending himself from a misdemeanor, When he was obviously guilty. He could
have saved the money that came from the faithful of his diocese, by pleading
guilty. As a first time offender, he would have avoided jail.
6. Gives the state control over the Church in order to avoid
prosecution in a different county. A second and separate county that the one he
was convicted in, since his crimes spanned two counties.
I read a brief defense from that well known lay defender of the Church Donahue (?) which states the OPPOSITE of the above: that the Archbp was not shown the original sample, one photo of a clothed child, that more pressing problems had to be attended to in the Diocese, that when the Archbp got back to the problem he instigated an investigation which then discovered many porn images on the priest’s computer, THAT THE PRIEST HAD NOT ACTED OUT ON ANY VICTIM, that the Archbp turned over the evidence to the police, which did not know of it, and then gets targeted….Wasn’t there a recent visit by Cardinal O’Malley before the resignation, who has some liberal tendencies in practice and the ear of the Pope? This stepping down of an exemplary bishop is a sign of what’s coming: an OPEN SCHISM in the Church, which has been prophesied in various Marian apparitions, e.g., Akita. There are two contradicting spirits warring just under the surface, one an alien, secular spirit of the world (Paul VI called it unCatholic) and a supernatural spirit in tune with the long Tradition of the Church and sees Vat II as harmonious with that history. From far away California in a diocese that barrowed some lay formation stuff from your previous regime I was so encouraged that A. Finn got rid of it and stunned that he was drummed out of office. In nearby SF a similar attack on the Arch. Cordelione is occurring. We are confident he will persevere and correct the errors that several previous Ordinaries failed to address.
And this is precisely the problem. Everyone is spinning a different story. I’m sticking with the two Missouri attorneys I’ve heard from who say the legal case wasn’t there and that it was a show trial, along with the good priests of the diocese who have nothing to gain and everything to lose for standing by their bishop.
That and my gut, which has told me the whole thing is rotten all along.
Steve,
The legal argument is beside the point, though. As Catholics, our interest is whether Finn is a good bishop, including whether he would put defending an abusive priest ahead of children in his priorities. I shared the Stipulation of Testimony given by the Diocese of Kansas City-St Joseph in the previous post on Bishop Finn, and it makes it clear that Finn was concerned more with Ratigan than the children in question. Here is that document: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/legal/State_of_Missouri_v_Bishop_Finn/2012_09_06_Finn_Stipulation_of_Testimony_R.pdf
Fact: whatever Finn’s intentions, Finn never reported Ratigan to the police. It was Mgsr. Murphy, without Finn’s knowledge or consent. From the Stipulation:
“62. Murphy stated that Finn was out of town when he reported to the
police and was “upset” upon learning of his actions. “It seemed he was
angry.” When asked if he was concerned that he might be angering his
boss Murphy stated, “Yes. I told my sister, I think I made a decision
that will not make the Bishop happy.” Murphy further testified that
defendant Finn told him he should have followed their attorney’s advice.
“63. Finn said he may have talked loudly because he had a loud voice. But he remembered Murphy looking crushed and did not think it was heated. Finn said he understood Murphy had shown the images to Smith in December 2010.”
Fact: Finn expressly said that he did not turn Ratigan in to police not because of a lack of incriminating evidence, but because he wanted to rehabilitate him.
“65. Creech contacted Finn after Ratigan’s arrest to find out what
had happened to cause Murphy to contact the police. Creech testified
that Finn “was a little frustrated that he had called at this point. And
I [Creech] asked why, and he [Finn] said because the priest wouldn’t
get the help he needs if he were in prison. And he [Finn] did explain
that they had provided psychiatric help for this priest and sent him
somewhere for some help.”
“66. Finn testified during the Grand Jury investigation that the issue of a mandated report to Children’s Division never came up in any conversation.
“67. Following the arrest of Ratigan, Finn met with priests of the Diocese. When asked why Ratigan was not removed earlier, Finn replied that he “wanted to save Fr. Ratigan’s priesthood” and was told that Ratigan’s problem was only pornography.”
Let’s say, hypothetically, that you were a parent in the Diocese of Kansas City. Photos of your daughter were found on your parish priest’;s computer, with her diaper pulled back to reveal her labia (as some photos were indeed found on Ratigan’s laptop). Your bishop may not have known that detail, but he did know that disturbing photos were on your priest’s laptop for the past five months. He also had received a report from a school principal reporting disturbing, pedophilic behavior from the same priest. During the priest’s recovery after attempted suicide, you know that the bishop knew this priest was having continued access to the children of the parish and was attempting to take upskirt photos of girls all the way up until the arrest is finally made. Your bishop resigns after the scandal, but then decides to turn a new leaf by applying as principal of the school where your children now go. Would you want him to be hired?
If not, why should he be a bishop, which is a far graver vocation?
You also had good priests at time, urging Bishop Finn to resign. The facts are known. They are in the Graves Report. The independent report and investigation commissioned by the diocese. A report that is a damning indictment of Finn, Murphy, and the diocese.
The Graves Report:
http://www.diocese-kcsj.org/_docs/8-31-11_Report_of_Independent_Investigation.pdf
“Good priests?” Who?
How many photos taken up a skirt of a little girl does there have to be for Finn to call the police? How many photos of a two year old’s genitalia has to be taken for Finn to decide to investigate, call the police, and get that man in jail?
Good question. But how many times do any of us need to commit crimes before the police are called? How many of us holier-than-thou (c)atholics have done similar things? The world is awash in porn and child sex assaults. How many men and women in our neighborhoods are complicit in this? Bishop Finn is not the problem. WE are the problem.
Pete,
Some statements you made are correct, some are incorrect.
“that the Archbp was not shown the original sample, one photo of a clothed child”
Finn did not see the photos himself. In December 2010, his vicar general described one photo out of hundreds found on Ratigan’s laptop in a phone conversation to a police captain, asking if it was pornographic. Without any other context or information, that captain said no and that was the end of that. That is, of course, outrageous, considering that the same month, according to the Stipulation of testimony:
“19. On December 16, 2010, Creech observed eight photographs focusing on a little girl’s vaginal area with the panties being moved further aside in each photograph, with the final photograph depicting a naked vagina. Also discovered in this location was a photograph of a child’s bare bottom and a photograph of a little girl. Creech made the assumption that the vaginal photographs and the photograph of the bottom were of the same girl.”
Finn was made aware of disturbing photos on Ratigan’s laptop, and prior to that incident, had received a report from a Catholic school principal detailing disturbing behavior from Ratigan such as resting girls on his laptop for prolonged periods, his house being filled with toys, and girls’ panties being found in one of his planters. Finn chose not to read that report, nor examine the photos for himself, nor report either as he was obliged to do by law after settlements for sex abuse concluded by him for the sins of his predecessors in 2008. That is, in my opinion, the path of willful ignorance: see no evil, hear no evil.
Finn is not an archbishop, by the way; just a bishop.
“that more pressing problems had to be attended to in the Diocese”
When a priest is preying on children, that is a huge problem. If, in the year 2010, nine years after the sex abuse crisis blew up in Boston, we don’t think it’s that big of a deal, we are part of the cancer in the Church, not the solution.
“that when the Archbp got back to the problem he instigated an
investigation which then discovered many porn images on the priest’s
computer, THAT THE PRIEST HAD NOT ACTED OUT ON ANY VICTIM”
All those images were discovered the first time around by the technician who worked on Ratigan’s laptop. Finn did not make any further investigation into it beyond what his vicar general already did. In fact, Finn turned that laptop back over to Ratigan’s brother, who then destroyed the laptop and whatever further evidence might have been within. Ratigan’s laptop, therefore, was never subject to police inspection.
And yes, Ratigan most certainly acted out on children under his pastoral care by photographing them nude, clothed but with lewd intentions, and by stripping them while they were asleep. Girls as young as 2 years old.
Asbury Fox….you need to get your facts corrrect. Google the “Graves Report”, 146 pages of a timeline to the Finn investigation by the Graves Group. Msgr. Murphy withheld many/most of the facts of the Ratigan abuse issue from Finn….for months. Murphy faile to follow Diocese protocal and did not notify the IRB (Independant Review Board) immediately, which would have raised the issue to Finn’s and the proper law levels…..then he was given IMMUNITY by the prosecution to testify against Finn.
The “lady” Clay county prosecutor was after Bishop Finn…period. And he fell on the knife to save the Diocese the pain. Read alittle before you type such disgusting propaganda.
No that is not correct. Bishop Finn was made aware of the pornographic images. He was made aware of these images while the laptop was in the possession of the laptop in the chancery. The Graves Report is a damning indictment of Bishop Finn’s failures. Journalists also made some good investigative reporting. The NY Times had a great article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/us/in-pedophile-case-church-failed-to-stop-priest.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1
“…The deacon immediately took the laptop to Monsignor Murphy at the chancery offices. He gave it to Julie Creech, a technology staff member at the diocese. Ms. Creech found “hundreds of photographs,” according to the testimony, many taken on playgrounds, under tables or in one case, while a girl was sleeping. Many pictures did not show faces — only close-ups of crotches. Ms. Creech wrote a report for her superiors noting that only four or five of the hundreds of pictures appeared to have been downloaded from the Internet: “the rest appeared to have been taken with a personal camera….. 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. “I really got the feeling that maybe he didn’t understand,” Ms. Creech said in the deposition. “I don’t think he saw what I saw….
Those images of crotches, according to legal definitions, were not “pornographic” – even the single one of naked genitals. Indicative of a sick fetish and perversion, not necessarily anything else.
He is serving 50 years in federal prison for 5 counts of child pornography. Prosecutors dismissed another 8 as part of a deal.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article327277/Priest-sentenced-to-50-years-for-lurid-photographs-of-young-girls.html
You had a chancery staff member tell Bishop Finn to his face the nature of the hundreds of pornographic images, advising Finn to turn Fr. Ratigan in, and call the police. He did nothing.
He also personally turned the computer with the hundreds of photographs and evidence, not to the police, but to Fr. Ratigan’s brother, who of course naturally destroyed the computer. An obstruction of justice on the part of Finn.
To save his own skin, he gave the secular state control and oversight of the Church. A true scandal. Having the state control the Church, and that a bishop would harm the Church in such a way in order to save himself.
If Bishop Finn had done the right thing and resigned after his conviction, Pope Benedict, who was still Pope at the time, could have chosen another orthodox bishop to replace him to continue to build that diocese and heal it. Care would have been made to choose a truly holy man.
But because of Finn’s ego and arrogance, now Pope Francis has his chance to choose a Modernist for that diocese instead.
Bishop Finn wanted to save Father Ratigan’s priesthood. He wanted him to be able to deal with his problem. How “evil.” The hatred being expressed against Bishop Finn has nothing to do with sexual exploitation of children.
A man who had over 200 personal photos of child pornography, has no business being a priest. period. He was so depraved and a danger to soceity, that he has been convicted and is spending 50 years in prison.
I don’t disagree, but at the point I was talking about, Bishop Finn knew about the first round of sick photos that were deemed not pornographic. Bishop Finn so loves the priesthood. He wanted to do all that was possible to save Father Ratigan’s priesthood. He knew he had no chance of being reformed in prison.
He “wanted to save Father Ratigan’s priesthood.” Bishop Finn signed the Dallas Charter which didn’t give him the option of shielding a predator for the purpose of “saving his priesthood.” He broke his commitment to the Charter and he broke the law in the process.
Finn has by his own actions been convicted in the court of public opinion, the Court of Jackson County, and apparently also the papal court.
When everyone in the world is wrong, Mark, you have to at least wonder if maybe you’re the one who’s wrong.
Everyone in the world is not wrong. See the many defenses of Bishop Finn on this site, including Michael Quinlins great defense. It was a sham indictment of Bishop Finn.
Shame the pope didn’t see it that way. Or his sex abuse commission. Or the Congregation for Bishops. Or the Circuit Court. Or the Appellate Court. But they’re all just shams, right?
Politics – and we know who is the god of the world.
“Politics.” Cute. Everyone in the world is a blind slave to politics except you, right? Riiight.
Some more than others ….
You’d overlook a criminal conviction, an appellate confirmation of said criminal conviction, the recommendation of the pope’s sex abuse commission, the censure of the Congregation for Bishops, and even the pope’s own intervention in the career of a failed bishop … all because that bishop validates your ideological sentiments.
You’re right, some of us are clearly more “political” than others.
Jack would judge Bishop Finn’s errors dispassionately and contextually and not be swayed by emotionalism, public relations, the vengeful desire to claim the scalp of a Bishop for the sins of others, the offence he caused liberals, or the career ambitions of an assistant district attorney, yes.
You were able to do all that, yet the pope could not? Shame the cardinals didn’t elect you.
Is that it? That’s your argument against measured justice?
Anyways, God preordained that Jack should serve Him in other ways and not as Pope.
I’m not making an argument against measured justice. I’m just saying I’ll trust the pope over you.
Well, you don’t actually know the Pope’s position, do you? Besides, even Popes can make mistakes in areas of prudential judgement.
I’d say the pope’s position here is pretty clear since only a pope can ask for a bishop’s resignation. I’ll just go ahead and trust him on this one.
We have to accept the Pope’s authority, agreed. However, you really don’t know the Pope’s thoughts on this or why Bishop Finn finally resigned, do you?
Happy Jack, I’m no sickologist, but it seems that Nick is very upset about something more than he is saying.
It is hard to determine motive. Jack can understand any American Catholic being angry and distraught at the Church’s performance in the abuse scandal. It makes Jack’s blood boil too and he lives in Britain.
Many may have lost their faith over this. Others will have turned their anger into an attack on the Church’s traditional structures and embraced the liberal agenda. Some will have clung to an exaggerated sense of righteousness and judgementalism.
Pope Francis doesn’t like the way orthodox bishops run their dioceses. He recently said that he wanted “quality, not a quantity of” seminarians. That’s an obvious shot at all of the orthodox dioceses, including KC-StJ, that have strong numbers of seminarians. From what I have heard, Pope Francis did not have a good record attracting seminarians in Buenos Aires as its archbishop.
Unfortunately, he listened to Burke haters, and I mean haters, OMalley and Wuerl. So I guess the great Pope Benedict XVI was wrong for not firing Bishop Finn.
“Failed bishop?” Bishop Finn is by far the best bishop in the history of the KC-St. Joseph Diocese. So you call him a “criminal” and now a “failed bishop,” but you want us to know that you really like Bishop Finn. Right.
Congregation for bishops? What am I missing? And I thought he was only found guilty of a misdemeanor in one court. The prosecution was a sham advanced by a NARAL backed prosecutor. So obvious what was really going on.
Where’s your evidence for the assertion that Father Ratigan was a “predator”? And Bishop Finn exercised judgement – doesn’t the Charter call for discernment. And, frankly. it’s questionable if he broke the law.
Bishop Finn isn’t the first man, and he wont be last, unfairly convicted in “the court of public opinion”. A notable case springs to mind of a mob baying for the execution of an innocent man.
My evidence? He’s serving a 50-year sentence thanks to the overwhelming mountain of evidence against him. Where’s my evidence… bless your heart.
“Unfairly convicted”? By the circuit court, the appellate court, and the papal court all at once? Everyone is blind except you, is that it? How lucky we are to have such a visionary among us. Shame no one put you in charge of anything, isn’t it?
The conviction and imprisonment was for the possession of images of children. Where’s the evidence he was a “predator”.
Yes, Bishop Finn was unfairly convicted for political reasons and to satisfy a baying mob.
He violated the trust, the privacy, and the human dignity of children placed in his care by taking lewd photos of them for his sexual gratification. If you don’t find that predatory, then I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously.
“Predatory” suggests a desire to act sexually against children in ways that rob them directly of their innocence. Were these images crude and offensive in a sexual way? Not according to the FBI criteria. Jack is not defending this sick and immoral fetish. However, you are exaggerating it for your own purposes.
You’re dishonestly defining “predatory” too narrowly in order to make a point.
Predatory is defined my Merriam-Webster as “using others for pleasure.” It is defined by Oxford as “seeking to exploit for sexual gratification.”
I’d say this fits the bill. Just because there were no bruises doesn’t mean that Fr. Ratigan didn’t repeatedly and compulsively exploit and violate the trust, the privacy and the dignity of children in his care for his own sexual pleasure. “Predatory” is exactly the right word.
But were they “criminal”? Did they cause harm?
Say Jack got a thrill out of photographing the feet of children because he had such a fetish. That would be sexually motivated. By your definition it would be “predatory”. The images would not be pornographic. They would not be “lewd”.
However, they would fit your definition: “repeatedly and compulsively exploit the trust, the privacy and the dignity of children in his care for his own sexual pleasure.”
So is “predatory” the right word?
Yes, turning another human being into an object of sexual gratification is predatory, regardless of circumstances, and even regardless of whether the victim is aware of it.
This is why the Church has long taught that pornography is intrinsically evil, even pornography in which the “actor” was filmed without his/her knowledge, anonymity was maintained, and no direct harm was caused.
It is predatory because it turns a human being, endowed with all the grace and dignity of divine adoption, into an object of sexual gratification.
You’re digging your feet in on this for no good reason. I’ll repeat: If you don’t find his actions predatory, then I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously.
Now you’ve shifted your argument from criminality (where a person is harmed) to morality (where God is offended). They are different. Jack agrees with you on the moral argument that if a person is driven to sexual gratification through actions that are unchaste, this is intrinsically evil.
But what is “pornography”?
I never made an argument from criminality. You tried to get me to, but I didn’t take the bait. Don’t argue a straw man just because you can’t confront my position directly. You only compromise your own credibility.
“I never made an argument from criminality.”
ROFL …. Your whole argument rests on the criminality of Ratigan’s actions and the failures of Bishop Finn to report him.
“He broke his commitment to the Charter and he broke the law in the process.”
“My evidence? He’s serving a 50-year sentence thanks to the mountain of evidence against him.”
Then you introduced damage to the credibility of the Catholic “brand”.
Now you want to talk about morality? This is where Bishop Finn arrived too having discounted criminality and pornography.
“ROFL”? Really, Jack? Shall we bring this in from the playground?
I never made an argument from criminality, as much as you wish I had. Just because his immoral behavior had criminal consequences doesn’t mean my position was premised on criminal law. Besides, the two are not mutually exclusive; rather, they’re quite mutually supportive.
Anyway, Bishop Finn is out. Neither your hurt feelers, nor your endless contortions, nor your ideological self-righteousness will change that. My joy is complete.
Jack has no personal investment in this – other than justice. And any self righteousness on display has been from you. Jack suspects you’re the type of “traditionalist” that Pope Francis is so critical of. There’s no “joy” in any of this.
Feel free to live in an aggrieved world of your own imagining where endless injustices befall the righteous. Me, I’ll stick to this world, where justice has already been served.
Jack:
From the court opinion of Shawn Ratigan v. United States:
“A search of Ratigan’s electronic media revealed images of child pornography. Ratigan was charged in a thirteen-count indictment and pleaded guilty to the five counts set forth above. The counts of conviction involved images of five different victims that were produced between 2005 and 2009. Jane Doe 1 was a relative of Ratigan’s. She was six years old when he produced a series of images that began with close up shots of her vaginal area clothed in a wet swimsuit and ended with an image of her swimsuit pushed to one side and her legs spread, revealing her bare vagina. Ratigan produced images of Jane Doe 2 over the course of three years. He produced an image of her naked backside when she was two years old. Ratigan had used his thumb to pull her left buttock aside to reveal part of her labia. In another image, Jane Doe 2 sat on a chair, naked from the waist down, with her legs spread. Jane Doe 3 was also a relative of Ratigan’s. She was five years old when Ratigan produced images of her sitting between his legs, naked from the waist down, with her legs spread to expose her vagina. Other images of Jane Doe 3, depict her vagina, with Ratigan’s hand pulling her thigh or buttocks to the side or his hand spreading her labia. Jane Doe 4 was seven years old when Ratigan produced a series of images of her wearing a swimsuit, including an image of her partially exposed vagina. Jane Doe 5 was eight or nine years old when Ratigan photographed her. Some of the images depict Jane Doe 5 sleeping, with Ratigan’s hand pulling her underwear away from her body to expose her vaginal area.”
If that’s not pornographic, I really don’t know what is.
Jack, you wrote:
‘Where’s the evidence he was a “predator”.’
From the court opinion of Shawn Ratigan v. United States:
” Jane Doe 2’s parents spoke at
the sentencing hearing, testifying how they had “watched [their] happy, outgoing,
vibrant little girl grow depressed, withdrawn, terrified, and very anxious.” Id. at 41.
The mother spoke of the pain of viewing the images and the blame that she put on
herself for allowing Ratigan near her daughter. The father asked for a 50-year
sentence, “We’re talking about our two-year-old daughter. In 50 years my daughter
will still be here dealing with it. I don’t know what to tell her.” Id. at 47. In closing,
the government emphasized that Ratigan was a serial offender, who had abused five
different victims over the course of six years.”
You keep making this assertion. All the accounts I’ve read said that clearly, these photographs were *not* pornographic. They were at most indicative of an inclination.
And last I heard, that’s not a crime. So the fact that action was taken, that pyschiatric counseling was sought (and again, Ratigan got a clean bill of health from that evaluation, so why isn’t that Psychiatrist on the hook?) means that this isn’t the cut and dried situation being presented.
I have not read the entire Graves report. But from the various things I have read, I struggle to see criminal behavior. There are a lot of factors at work, but that isn’t one of them.
Continued great points
Are you kidding me Steve? Fr. Ratigan was convicted of child pornography. He is serving 50 years in prison because of his conviction due to child pornography. Here’s an article on his conviction:
“U.S. District Judge Gary Fenner followed the recommendation of federal prosecutors and sentenced the 47-year-old Ratigan to 50 years in prison. There is no parole in the federal prison system.
“Your conduct shows, Mr. Ratigan, that you are a chronic sexual abuser,” Fenner said before imposing the sentence. “You violated the trust of individuals to an extent that is devastating.” In seeking the lengthy sentence for Ratigan, prosecutors portrayed him as an arrogant and reckless man who flagrantly disregarded his priestly vows, used young girls as sexual objects, and repeatedly lied to his superiors, fellow priests and police when he was found out.
“Fifty years is necessary to protect society from him,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Katharine Fincham said…”
“…A grand jury indicted Ratigan in 2011 on 13 counts of production, attempted production and possession of child pornography involving five girls ranging in age from 2 to 9. Some of those incidents occurred on or around church property.
Ratigan pleaded guilty in August 2012 to five charges — one for each of the victims. The other eight counts involving other incidents with the same victims were dismissed by prosecutors Thursday as part of an oral agreement with Ratigan and his attorney…”
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article327277/Priest-sentenced-to-50-years-for-lurid-photographs-of-young-girls.html#storylink=cpy
Your chronology is bad. The first set of pictures that were discovered were not pornographic. It is my understanding that it was on this basis that the criminal proceedings went forward, because after the discovery of the first set, Ratigan was sent for psychiatric evaluation rather than being turned over to law enforcement. But as Missouri attorney Michael Quinlan pointed out, there was, at the time of the discovery of the first set of photos, no actual crime to report.
Only later, after Ratigan violated the restrictions Finn placed on him, was he discovered to have been in possession of pornographic photos. At that time, he was immediately turned in.
You are wrong. The computer technician found hundreds of photos on Ratigan’s laptop at Ratigan’s home. He turned it over to a deacon at a parish. The deacon takes it over to Msgr. Murphy and the chancery. Msgr. Murphy makes a call to his police friend and asks about a hypothetical single photo. Msgr. Murphy hadn’t looked at the computer yet. Staff members Julie Creech looks at the laptop and discovers hundreds of photos. Not all are pornographic, but many are. Staff, Murphy, and Finn are made aware of these photos. It was at this point Ratigan should have been turned in and the laptop given to the police. The photos on the laptop were enough for him to be convicted of child pornography right then and there. The evidence was destroyed because Finn handed the laptop to Ratigan’s brother.
“On Dec. 17, 2010, Bishop Finn learned from his vicar general, Msgr. Robert Murphy, that Father Ratigan was found to have “disturbing” photos of children on his personal laptop, but that the police captain on the diocese’s Independent Review Board (IRB) advised that they were not pornographic. This advice was confirmed within a day by the diocese’s attorney, a partner with one of Kansas City’s most prominent law firms, who reviewed the laptop pictures and advised that they did not constitute child pornography.
That day, Father Ratigan unsuccessfully attempted suicide. After some weeks, he recovered and was sent to Pennsylvania for psychiatric evaluation. This evaluation resulted in a report to Bishop Finn that concluded Father Ratigan was not a pedophile. From Dec. 17, 2010 until sometime shortly after Feb.10, 2011, Father Ratigan was hospitalized for treatment of depression.
After his release from the hospital, while diocesan officials considered how to deal with the situation, Bishop Finn isolated Father Ratigan with an assignment serving elderly nuns in a secluded location. In addition, among other restrictions, Bishop Finn explicitly ordered Father Ratigan to have no contact with children and not to use a computer.
On March 31, 2011, Bishop Finn first learned that Father Ratigan had violated his restrictions by attending a young girl’s birthday party earlier that month. Following consultations with his staff, on April 8, Bishop Finn met with and reprimanded Father Ratigan, repeating his directive to not contact children. However, Ratigan began disobeying these orders within days, although the Graves report seems to indicate diocesan officials were not aware of this at the time.
Around the beginning of May, Msgr. Murphy, recovering from knee surgery, received a report that Father Ratigan was accessing guest computers at the place he was staying. On May 11, returning from his convalescence, Msgr. Murphy met with the IRB police captain and made the determination to turn the laptop photos over to police. Bishop Finn was out of town at the time. The ensuing investigation led to the child pornography charges previously mentioned.
At no time during this process was any victim of sexual abuse ever identified. The children in the “disturbing” laptop photos could not be readily identified at the time because all but two of the subjects’ faces were obscured. All but one of the photos were of normally clothed children, although the pictures focused on the children’s abdomen and crotch areas.
Bishop Finn was told of only one nude photo of a diaper-removed toddler showing full frontal nudity. However, as noted, the diocese’s attorney had advised the bishop this photo was not pornographic because there was no depiction of sexual activity. This confirmed the previous advice from the IRB police captain. Bishop Finn did not personally review any of the photos.
The Graves Report indicates that, based on the information available to him, Bishop Finn did not believe Father Ratigan had sexually molested anyone. This belief seems so far to be validated by the continuing absence of any criminal charges of sexual molestation against Father Ratigan. The Graves Report acknowledged that diocesan officials were never aware of an “identifiable victim.”
It is precisely this absence of an “identifiable victim” that renders the indictment erroneous and exonerates Bishop Finn from the criminal charges.”
http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=4332
EWTN, not surprisingly, have their facts wrong. Actually the police captain gave Murphy that advice because Murphy told him about a single photo.
From the Graves Report:
“…According to Capt. Smith, on the morning of May 11, 2011, he met with Msgr. Murphy to discuss the issue, not knowing what it involved. Msgr. Murphy opened the conversation by stating that regarding the laptop, “there were hundreds of photos.” Capt. Smith stated that he was shocked and told Msgr. Murphy, “that’s not what you told me.” Capt. Smith advised him that at this point, the Fr. Ratigan incident was a criminal matter and he needed to turn the laptop over to the police…”
The victims couldn’t be identified because the photos were destroyed. Parents didn’t get a chance to view the pictures. There weren’t readily identifiable at the time because they were faceless, but over time, with the clothes and settings, identification could have been made.The Police did not have the photos. It also didn’t happen because Finn did not go to parents or families to attempt to identify the victims in the photos.
There’s also this, from The Media Report:
“Many in the public are unaware that two computer technicians, a diocesan lawyer, a monsignor, a vice-chancellor, a psychiatric doctor, and a deacon all allegedly saw the disturbing images from Fr. Ratigan’s computer, but none of them officially alerted law enforcement.”
If not, why not? Was it because the images were “disturbing” but not pornographic?
“According to an independent report of the entire Ratigan episode, known as the Graves Report, Bishop Finn stated that he “never saw the images” from the priest’s laptop. Indeed, as the Graves Report concluded:
“As soon as the photographs were discovered on Fr. Ratigan’s laptop, police should have been formally notified. Although various individuals undoubtedly believed that someone else would make the call, the fact remains that a phone call could have been made by anyone and everyone with knowledge of the pictures.”
Why did this not happen? Why was nobody else prosecuted?
“As soon as a dubious photograph was found on Fr. Ratigan’s computer, a Church official didspeak with a police captain.
Multiple media reports have given the false impression that the diocese did “nothing” after a computer technician found a dubious photograph of an underage girl on Ratigan’s computer in December 2010.
Unfortunately, the police captain, upon given a description of the photograph over the phone, opined to Msgr. Murphy that the picture likely did not fit the definition of child pornography and would not be prosecutable.
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile/52721715-68/ratigan-diocese-computer-finn.html.csp
The mistake – obviously – is that the diocese still should have immediately removed Ratigan from ministry and filed a police report anyways.”
I don’t disagree that this would have been the most effective course of action, but I also view it with the benefit of hindsight. If the Bishop was led to believe at the time that there was nothing criminal on the laptop, why wouldn’t it have been appropriate for him to seek psychological counesling/evaluation for Ratigan to find out what’s going on before just throwing him to the legal system?
Are we honestly advocating that for priests, it should be “guilty until proven innocent”?
The Media Report analysis continues:
“Fr. Ratigan worked at a parish with a school. The school’s principal and teachers appear to have violated Missouri’s mandated reporting law, yet prosecutors have declined to prosecute them. Instead, Kansas City prosecutors have targeted the higher profile target of Bishop Finn.
The principal of the school, Julie Hess, wrote in a May 2010 letter of concern to the diocese(handled by Monsignor Robert Murphy) that the priest was “at school every day for long periods of time.”
Principal Hess’ letter also outlined page after page of “inappropriate conduct with children”by Ratigan and suspicious photography of vulnerable children by the priest.
Missouri’s law is clear: If teachers and school principals have “reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been or may be subjected to abuse or neglect or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse or neglect, that person shall immediately report or cause a report to be made to [the state’s Children’s Division].” The state adds, “Reasonable cause to suspect means a standard of reasonable suspicion, rather than conclusive proof.” Failing to report is a Class A misdemeanor in Missouri.”
Again, we see evidence that Finn was a target of opportunity. Again, we see evidence that he may actually have known less than almost everyone else involved in the strange case of Fr. Ratigan.
More:
“Criminal charges of “failing to report” are rarely executed, and it is even more rare that they are prosecuted. And despite the vehement denials from law enforcement in Kansas City that it has not singled out the Catholic Church, it sure seems like it has.
Missouri law enforcement hardly had to lift a finger in this case. It was the diocese who handed over a flash drive to police – albeit too slowly – with criminal images from Fr. Ratigan’s computer.
Without the initiative and actions of Bishop Finn, Father Ratigan could still be in ministry today, and prosecutors would not have charged the criminal priest.”
http://www.themediareport.com/2011/10/15/what-the-media-got-wrong-in-the-bishop-finn-case/
Which is a damning indictment of Finn’s leadership and judgement. You have the laptop in your possession at the chancery. Employees have told you about the nature of the photos. Some of them are telling you to turn Raritan in and call the police. How in the world do you not take a look at the laptop and photos for yourself? Given how serious the matter was. Finn was there in the chancery to look at them if he wanted to. A true shepherd and leader would have taken action. Inconceivable that the man in charge would choose not to bother and to not look at the photos. Finn chose to keep his eyes close and be blind.
I admit to some hyperbole earlier. Not all the photos were pornograhic but many were. How many? I can’t say. No one can. The police and DA never got the hundreds of photos. It only takes one photo for child pornography. Given that he was indicted and convicted of many counts of child pornograpy and that employees were telling Finn to call the police it was safe to conclude there was child pornography there in that computer. Any one would think so. It wasn’t something for defense lawyers to judge. As the police captain told Murphy, when he found out it wasn’t one photo, but hundreds, it was a criminal and police matter. The nature and number of photos always made it a police and criminal matter.
Everyone failed in this case. The computer technician should have called the police. The deacon should have called the police. Murphy should have called the police. The chancery staff should have called the police. Finn should have called the police. Everyone should have called about a laptop with hundreds of photos.
Bishop Finn was the bishop. He was the man at the top. The leader of the Church for the diocese. The man who is in charge and who is responsible for the moral and administrative decisions of the diocese. The buck stopped with him. Being on the top he was responsible for the cover up and all final decisions.
EWTN published the opinion of Mark Quinlan, a Missouri attorney who has been practicing for 25 years. It’s not EWTN. It’s Quinlan. And he got his information FROM the Graves Report.
He said that “All but one of the photos were of normally clothed children, although the pictures focused on the children’s abdomen and crotch areas.”
You say there were hundreds of pornographic images on that laptop. Which is it? IIRC, when the pornographic images were finally produced and turned over, they were on a thumb drive. How was this thumb drive obtained if the photos were destroyed with the original laptop?
The facts, and the representations thereof, don’t seem to add up.
Steve,
Check out the court opinion of Shawn Ratigan v. United States:
“A search of Ratigan’s electronic media revealed images of child pornography. Ratigan was charged in a thirteen-count indictment and pleaded guilty to the five counts set forth above. The counts of conviction involved images of five different victims that were produced between 2005 and 2009. Jane Doe 1 was a relative of Ratigan’s. She was six years old when he produced a series of images that began with close up shots of her vaginal area clothed in a wet swimsuit and ended with an image of her swimsuit pushed to one side and her legs spread, revealing her bare vagina. Ratigan produced images of Jane Doe 2 over the course of three years. He produced an image of her naked backside when she was two years old. Ratigan had used his thumb to pull her left buttock aside to reveal part of her labia. In another image, Jane Doe 2 sat on a chair, naked from the waist down, with her legs spread. Jane Doe 3 was also a relative of Ratigan’s. She was five years old when Ratigan produced images of her sitting between his legs, naked from the waist down, with her legs spread to expose her vagina. Other images of Jane Doe 3, depict her vagina, with Ratigan’s hand pulling her thigh or buttocks to the side or his hand spreading her labia. Jane Doe 4 was seven years old when Ratigan produced a series of images of her wearing a swimsuit, including an image of her partially exposed vagina. Jane Doe 5 was eight or nine years old when Ratigan photographed her. Some of the images depict Jane Doe 5 sleeping, with Ratigan’s hand pulling her underwear away from her body to expose her vaginal area.”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ca8-13-03174/pdf/USCOURTS-ca8-13-03174-0.pdf
Do you really mean to tell me that’s not child pornography?
Again, my question is not whether Fr. Ratigan possessed (or produced) child pornography. It is whether what was found on his laptop at the time of initial discovery included these images, or whether they were discovered at a later date, leading to his arrest and the turning over by the diocese of all materials in their possession.
I’ve actually been looking through the Graves Report this morning. I’m far from done. So far, however, even in their findings, which indicated that norms were not adequately followed, every indication is that Msgr. Murphy is the one who made decisions based on insufficient information, and who informed Bishop Finn of the status of events.
And again, so far, the narrative reads as I understand it: the initial findings of what was on the laptop included only one image depicting nudity, and in a non-sexual manner, while all others were of children fully clothed.
The timeline matters. Is there evidence that these images the case describes were identified on the initial examination of the laptop?
The images described in the court opinion I quoted were initially recovered from the laptop and copied onto the flash drive in December 2010. Whether they were viewed and identified at the time by Monsignor Murphy, I can’t say. Certainly, Murphy shares a great deal of blame in all this. However, someone in the diocese must have copied them when the laptop was first confiscated. They were not found on the laptop in a subsequent search because the laptop was returned to Ratigan’s family (on Finn’s orders) and destroyed.
Murphy recalled describing the nature and content of the photographs to Finn.
Finn recalled being told by Murphy there were a couple of similar images where the face was not visible. It was an infant female maybe 2 – 4 years old,
naked, with the focus on the genitalia.
Also this:
“Exactly what did Bishop Finn do — or fail to do? A recent KCUR radio reportgave this typically tendentious summary:
Bishop Finn is alleged to have known that Father Shawn Ratigan had taken sexually explicit photographs of children for several months before reporting to police. The indictments also allege Ratigan was allowed to work with children after he was removed from St. Patrick’s Catholic School.
But the “facts” highlighted in that report are precisely the key claims disputed by the Kansas City diocese. The bishop never saw Father Ratigan’s photos, and he was told that they were not pornographic. Nevertheless he pulled Father Ratigan out of active ministry and told him to stay away from children. When he found that the priest was violating that directive, he reported him to police.
That’s right: it was the Kansas City diocese, under the direction of Bishop Finn, that reported the priest to police. Father Ratigan now faces child-pornography charges because the diocese alerted prosecutors. Far from protecting the priest from prosecutors, the bishop and the diocese led the prosecutors to him!”
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/did-bishop-finn-deserve-indictment
Steve, you wrote,
“The bishop never saw Father Ratigan’s photos, and he was told that they were not pornographic. Nevertheless he pulled Father Ratigan out of active ministry and told him to stay away from children. When he found that the priest was violating that directive, he reported him to police.”
To be clear, Bishop Finn never reported Ratigan to police at any point. That was Monsignor Murphy, while Finn was out of town, without Finn’s knowledge or consent. The Diocese’s Stipulation of Testimony makes it clear that Finn did not want to turn Ratigan over. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/legal/State_of_Missouri_v_Bishop_Finn/2012_09_06_Finn_Stipulation_of_Testimony_R.pdf
“62. Murphy stated that Finn was out of town when he reported to the police and was “upset” upon learning of his actions. “It seemed he was angry.” When asked if he was concerned that he might be angering his boss Murphy stated, “Yes. I told my sister, I think I made a decision that will not make the Bishop happy.” Murphy further testified that defendant Finn told him he should have followed their attorney’s advice.
“63. Finn said he may have talked loudly because he had a loud voice. But he remembered Murphy looking crushed and did not think it was heated. Finn said he understood Murphy had shown the images to Smith in December 2010.”
“65. Creech contacted Finn after Ratigan’s arrest to find out what had happened to cause Murphy to contact the police. Creech testified that Finn “was a little frustrated that he had called at this point. And I [Creech] asked why, and he [Finn] said because the priest wouldn’t get the help he needs if he were in prison. And he [Finn] did explain that they had provided psychiatric help for this priest and sent him somewhere for some help.”
“66. Finn testified during the Grand Jury investigation that the issue of a mandated report to Children’s Division never came up in any conversation.
“67. Following the arrest of Ratigan, Finn met with priests of the Diocese. When asked why Ratigan was not removed earlier, Finn replied that he “wanted to save Fr. Ratigan’s priesthood” and was told that Ratigan’s problem was only pornography.”
“To be clear, Bishop Finn never reported Ratigan to police at any point. That was Monsignor Murphy”
Yes, as I’ve read more I’ve cleared up that misconception. In fact it seems that Msgr. Murphy was responsible for virtually every decision in this case, both good and bad – including the downplaying of the nature of the photos on the laptop.
But if you’re going to hold Finn accountable for Msgr. Murphy’s negative actions, you have to give him credit for the positive ones. His subordinate acted on his behalf. Perhaps if he knew the full story, he would have acted differently. Who is to say that his disagreement on such a decision (contacting authorities) while he was out of town wasn’t based, again, on the initial information he was given: that the images were not pornographic, and did not rise to the level where legal action was warranted?
After all, we do know that on December 20, 2010 (according to the same report you cited) the laptop and flash drive along with the report was given to the diocesan attorney, who advised the diocese that in his legal opinion they did not comprise child pornography.
And the bishop had already been told that law enforcement had been similarly consulted.
Further, “35. In December, 2010 members of the executive staff (Finn, Summers, Moss,
and Msgr. Brad Offutt, Diocesan Chancellor) were under the impression that Murphy
had actually shown the Ratigan computer images to Smith.”
[…]
“40. Finn testified the report he received from Fitzgibbons said Ratigan was not a
risk to children. Ratigan thereafter received treatment via phone conferences with
Fitzgibbons or his associates.”
And so on.
As I make my way through this report, I see ongoing action taken again and again throughout each month from December 2010 until the arrest in May, 2011.
I see a bishop being given information that leads him to believe that the activity of this priest is not criminal, but possibly psychological and spiritual. He is given the impression from his Vicar General, diocesan attorney, the law enforcement officer attached to the review board, and the principle of the school where Fr. Ratigan worked that these were not criminal actions. The psychologist did not believe Ratigan was a threat to children. The bishop had correspondence with Ratigan about his problems with “pornography,” but not “child pornography.”
In HINDSIGHT, it is clear what Fr. Ratigan was. But I am trying to see it from the perspective of the bishop, who is doing more than sitting around in the comment boxes of blogs, who has a serious concern for the priesthood and spiritual well-being of one of his priests, and wants to get him help before throwing him to the jaws of a legal system that is voracious in its pursuit of clergy in the wake of the abuse crisis.
And that bishop is being told that things are far less serious than they later appeared to be.
There is no explanation given as to why he was upset at Murphy for reporting Ratigan, other than that he wanted Ratigan to get the help he needs – something he knew would not happen in prison. The bishop reiterated again that he was told the problem was “only pornography.”
In my initial read of the Graves Report, it is noted that Bishop Finn was fully cooperative in the investigation. That everything was turned over. He was clearly not attempting to hide anything. And it wasn’t as if this situation went on for years. The time frame is roughly from last Christmas to now. How fast has that gone for you? It’s the blink of an eye for me. I still remember what I ate for breakfast the day after Christmas, for goodness sake.
There are many bad bishops out there who acted in bad faith and sheltered pedophiles indefinitely. This is clearly not the case here. At the same time, it is clearly the case that Finn had ideological enemies who wanted nothing more than to see him in handcuffs and removed, and they have openly rejoiced at his rather unusual and suspicious conviction.
Meanwhile, the fruits of his work in the diocese are manifest. Good priests. Healthy seminary. Better liturgies. Pro-life activities. A general inclination towards the good of souls.
Ratigan wasn’t one of Finn’s priests. He inherited him. The new priests coming up are being given good formation and encouraged to be orthodox. It’s very rarely the orthodox, holy, faithful priests who fall into this garbage. It’s the ones formed in whacked-out, progressive seminaries.
There’s clearly fault here, although everything I read shows that Murphy is the one who should have been in the crosshairs – along with the attorney, the psychologist, the princpal, etc.
But by removing Finn, and opening the door to an inferior replacement, what will happen to the good priests and seminarians he brought into the diocese? What kind of priests will come from the sort of diocese that will result?
The sex abuse crisis didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened because most bishops abandoned the faith, and thus the standards and sexual mores that should have governed seminary admissions. I struggle to see how this ends well for Kansas City-St. Joseph.
“But if you’re going to hold Finn accountable for Msgr. Murphy’s negative actions, you have to give him credit for the positive ones. His subordinate acted on his behalf. Perhaps if he knew the full story, he would have acted differently. Who is to say that his disagreement on such a decision (contacting authorities) while he was out of town wasn’t based, again, on the initial information he was given: that the images were not pornographic, and did not rise to the level where legal action was warranted?”
I don’t have to because the buck stops with the bishop. That’s why he has the mitre and crosier. No, I’m not blaming Finn for everything. There are obviously multiple levels of complicity here. But look, despite the diocesan attorney’s bad advice, the diocese’s systems technician, Julie Creech, made the contents clearly known to Finn:
“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.
““I really got the feeling that maybe he didn’t understand,” Ms. Creech said in the deposition. “I don’t think he saw what I saw.””
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/us/in-pedophile-case-church-failed-to-stop-priest.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2
“Meanwhile, the fruits of his work in the diocese are manifest. Good priests. Healthy seminary. Better liturgies. Pro-life activities. A general inclination towards the good of souls.”
I don’t contest any of Finn’s positive accomplishments. But a glass of fine wine with a drop of poison is still poison.
“And it wasn’t as if this situation went on for years. The time frame is roughly from last Christmas to now. How fast has that gone for you? It’s the blink of an eye for me. I still remember what I ate for breakfast the day after Christmas, for goodness sake.”
Some of my fellow trad friends would have me believe that most Catholics even before Vatican II went to hell even after receiving the last rites and dying peacefully in bed, and that this is affirmed repeatedly by the saints and various visions throughout the ages. I don’t have an opinion on that, but it suggests most people are damned in the 30 minutes to 2 days or so following confession, without even leaving the bedside and being able to actually do anything. 6 months is an eternity by comparison.
No, I’m not saying Finn or even Ratigan is going to hell. But in the six months since the laptop was initially discovered, Ratigan was in direct contact with children at least once in every single month between the start of his assignment at the Vincentian House and his arrest. This is a man who paid no heed whatsoever to his bishop’s entirely-voluntary restrictions, and Finn knew that. Finn still had no plan for further action. Even up until the arrest, Finn chose not to read the principal’s report. How hard would that have been?
“But by removing Finn, and opening the door to an inferior replacement, what will happen to the good priests and seminarians he brought into the diocese? What kind of priests will come from the sort of diocese that will result?”
That is also on Finn’s own head. He resigned; he wasn’t removed. Yes, Francis will probably appoint a disaster. But Finn made his own bed.
“But I am trying to see it from the perspective of the bishop, who is doing more than sitting around in the comment boxes of blogs, who has a serious concern for the priesthood and spiritual well-being of one of his priests, and wants to get him help before throwing him to the jaws of a legal system that is voracious in its pursuit of clergy in the wake of the abuse crisis.”
Of course, now he will have plenty of time to read comment boxes.
You appear to be of the position that a “serious concern for the priesthood” trumps a concern for the safety of the actual, not only spiritual children under the bishop’s charge. That idea is, of course, how we got to where we are; the origina of the sex abuse crisis predate Vatican II by a longshot. From the Graves Report again:
“Bishop Finn advised that he felt that notifying the parents at St. Patrick’s of the photos found on the laptop “would be like yelling fire in a crowded theater.””
Yikes.
And from the same report, the two notes left by parents after one of the bishop’s listening sessions:
“The images of my daughter’s private areas that the FBI showed me, they are forever burned into my brain. … Shawn Ratigan was in my house, around my children in February, and I thought my children were completely SAFE!!”
And:
“You let one of your priests hurt my children and you saw the pictures and decided to cover it up. That monster was in my house in February 11’ to prey on my children and I let him in, since you felt you were above the law and made that decision not to turn in photos of my kids.”
What did Bishop Finn fail to do?
” Murphy recalled describing the nature and content of the photographs to Finn.
Finn recalled being told by Murphy there were a couple of similar images where the face was not visible. It was an infant female maybe 2 – 4 years old,
naked, with the focus on the genitalia.”
And this:
“A county prosecutor’s agreement with Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph is a sign of the weakness of the charge that the bishop illegally failed to report suspected child sex abuse, a Missouri lawyer says.
The prosecutor of Clay County, Missouri is “reluctant” to follow the lead of the prosecutor in Jackson County because “he wasn’t going to have a successful prosecution,” St. Louis attorney Michael Quinlan suggested.
“The prosecution is avoiding a risky trial, and the bishop is avoiding what would be a less risky trial, but certainly a tremendous expense and bad publicity and all the terrible things that go along with that,” said Quinlan, who is not involved in the case.
“I would have thought that this would suggest to the prosecuting authorities in Jackson County that they might step back from the brink, but I don’t know whether it will have that effect or not.”
In Quinlan’s view, the possibility of a conviction is “slim” and the relevant statute “simply does not apply to the circumstance.”
“I think a fair minded jury should and would conclude that, there being no abuse victim, there could be no requirement to report,” he told CNA on Nov. 16.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/bishop-finn-agreement-seems-to-indicate-prosecutions-weak-case/
On December 16, 2010, Creech observed eight photographs focusing on a
little girl’s vaginal area with the panties being moved further aside in
each photograph, with the final photograph depicting a naked vagina.
Yes, this requires correction. The original set of pictures discovered were reported to the bishop as “not pornographic,” a conclusion supported by the diocesan attorney.
The question seems to have been whether these were legally actionable, since they were not in a specifically sexual context. More to the point was the question of whether Bishop Finn understood them to be what was described in great detail in the actual testimony.
Who care whether they meet the legal definition of pornographic? You have a sicko with pictures of little girls’ private areas. And the bishop doesn’t immediately laicize him? As a Dad if I found out someone had a picture of my little girl’s privates, I’d put a bullet in his head.
The law cares whether they meet the legal definition. This is a legal case, and there’s a difference between images that are indicative of a disorder and images which clearly cross a line into something obviously predatory. That difference is particularly important if the person who possesses those images is making them instead of downloading them.
Ratigan had clearly become a monster. Let’s put that on the table right now. We know this in the light of all that came out during the trials.
But what was known at the time was not nearly so clear. And there is a question of whether a man needs psychological help for a developing affliction vs. being put into prison for the rest of his life. The severity of the evidence discovered plays a central role in that.
“And the bishop doesn’t immediately laicize him?”
I’m given to understand that’s not within the competence of a bishop to simply do. Not to mention that due process should be followed.
“As a Dad if I found out someone had a picture of my little girl’s privates, I’d put a bullet in his head.”
I’m sorry, but that’s excessive. I understand having that reaction, but it’s entirely outside the scope of reasonable behavior or Christian principles. And a photograph, disturbing as it is, is far less severe than what it could have been. There’s a place along this spectrum where I might meet you for some vigilante action. This isn’t it.
I have six children. I have had people in my life who have been sexually molested, and others who have been sexually assaulted. I am not immune to the emotional component here.
But when the emotional component overrides everything else, it becomes and obstacle to justice.
Ratigan’s guilt is not at issue. Good riddance to him. The question is what Bishop Finn knew, and whether he acted maliciously in any way or attempted to hide it. From what I’ve read, I don’t see the evidence of that. Failure to report convictions are rare, precisely because the level of subjective understanding is so difficult to assess accurately in retrospect.
This is why it matters whether what was on the laptop was clearly pornographic, and why it matters that the bishop was told by law enforcement and counsel that they were not. It shifts his prudent response from reporting to getting help for a man who perhaps hasn’t done anything yet. If he honestly didn’t know the extent of the problem, it changes the response.
Remember, good priests who have done nothing wrong get thrown under the bus now, and have their priesthoods ruined, all on spurious charges. This most often happens when a priest is already disliked for being “too orthodox”. We don’t know every consideration of Bishop Finn in this case. It’s not in the reports. We do know that he didn’t cover up anything, cooperated fully with an investigation, and accepted his conviction. He understood that the responsibility ultimately rested with him. It doesn’t make him a bad man, or even a bad bishop. It means the system in place broke down, and he may have failed to see it as being as serious as it was.
Bishops are not called to be human resources consultants or attorneys. They are supposed to lead their flocks. They hire people with competence in other areas of administration to help them make the right decisions in things that fall outside their normal purview. In this case, those people failed the bishop, and none of them were prosecuted. I don’t know whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing, but trying to paint Bishop Finn as just another pedophile protector is manifestly unjust.
That’s the thing though. Law Enforcement never told Finn or the diocese that the photos were not pornographic. Law Enforcement never knew about the hundreds of photos. It wasn’t reported for 6 months and by then the evidence destroyed. It was up to Law Enforcement to determine what was pornographic. They were not able to do so. Finn failed to act.
I think maybe it’s time to take a step back. Unless you have access to information the rest of us don’t, it’s really unclear what was available and when. The evidence is circumstantial, literally “he said/she said.”
I continue to object to any characterization of malice on the part of Bishop Finn. It’s incongruous with the rest of his record as bishop. I’m not denying that there may indeed be some negligence here. I would have looked into things more closely, I think, but that would also depend on how much I trusted the counsel I was getting.
You seem very invested in this for someone on the outside. Are we not bound in charity to look for the best interpretation here on behalf of a man who has tried to do so much good for his diocese?
I just have all the facts from the Graves Report and the investigative reporting from the press. You keep saying Law Enforcement said it wasn’t pornographic, when the facts in all the case clearly shows that Law Enforcement wasn’t notified. It’s all important because it’s about truth and it shows why Finn was convicted of a crime. What you spent all this time trying to show was a sham.
As far as the advise of the legal counsel. From page 95 of the Graves Report in the footnotes:
2 Mr. Haden has stated that in rendering legal opinions to the Diocese, he viewed only those images that had been printed and attached to the Creech and Moss memorandum, which were only a subset of all of the images viewed by Ms. Creech and Ms. Moss and described in their memo. 133 Ms. Creech recalls that she had a conversation with Mr. Haden on December 17, 2010, and that he offered her the same opinion, i.e., that the pictures did not constitute child pornography. Mr. Haden could not recall this conversation
Page 96 and 97 of the graves report:
In his interview, Mr. Haden recalled that Msgr. Murphy’s sole request for advice related to the question of whether the images constituted child pornography. Neither Msgr. Murphy nor the Bishop asked him what they should do regarding the laptop or whether they should go to the police. When Msgr. Murphy suggested that Mr. Haden should review the laptop himself, Mr. Haden recalls responding that since he understood that Julie Creech had already reviewed it, a second review was unnecessary. (Ms. Creech had previously advised Msgr. Murphy that because her ability to review the laptop was limited, technology professionals might uncover images on the computer that were beyond her reach.)137 Mr. Haden also advised Msgr. Murphy that an in‐depth forensic analysis require engaging a third party vendor. Msgr. Murphy did not immediately or hereafter respond to this suggestion, and no Diocesan official
ever requested Mr. Haden to take this step.
We are bound to truth, justice, and charity. Bishop Finn was justly convicted. What happened to him was just. That he loose his office was charity for the diocese.
If this had happened to Mahony or Clark, traditionalists and conservatives would be cheering, but because the bishop was conservative, orthodox, and “one of their guys” they circled the wagon and blindly defend him. Mostly by the conservatives. The Church has become a political party for most. As a traditionalist, I don’t care if the bishop is Modernist or orthodox. If he covered up sex abuse and was convicted of this crime, he needs to go. I guess I care about truth more than the partisans.
Again, my issue is that I don’t believe he covered anything up. He appears to have failed to exercise the full discretion proper to his authority and to have trusted the counsel he got too much — and quite possibly not to have understood the severity of what he was dealing with — but nothing I have seen indicates malice, which is the only way to account for covering up the actions of a pedophile.
And this is not about politics, it’s about orthodoxy. Holy bishops, few that there are, do not implement all these reforms for the good of souls in their diocese, revive dying vocations, restore the liturgy, and so on, but simultaneously cover up grave evil. There is a paradox here that you’re refusing to deal with. Christ says, “by their fruits you shall know them,” and Bishop Finn bore a great deal of good fruit. This case seems to be the sole example that works against it, and the facts as laid out present the case that he did not act, again, out of malice, but failed to take seriously enough what was before him while following some bad advice.
I’ll be blogging my concluding thoughts on this today.
Murphy told Finn that he had spoken with Law Enforcement about these photos, and was told they were not pornographic. You know this. The Bishop acted on information he was given. If it later proved to be inaccurate, it doesn’t change the fact that it was the basis for his actions.
And there is nothing to indicate that the diocese wanted the evidence destroyed. In fact, they produced copies of the images taken from the laptop and provided them to law enforcement, which is why the Ratigan case moved forward at all.
As stipulated by Finn in sworn testimony:
Julie Creech, the Director of Information Technology for the Diocese, examined the laptop on December 16 and 17, 2010. During her examination she found hundreds of photographs characterized as up-skirt photographs or photographs focused on little girls’ crotches. Many of the photographs appear to be taken while little girls were crawling on playground equipment, under tables or in one case while a little girl was asleep with her hand and pajama bottoms appearing staged in a sexually suggestive manner. Many of the photographs were close ups of only the child’s crotch/panties, with no visible facial features. 19. On December 16, 2010, Creech observed eight photographs focusing on a little girl’s vaginal area with the panties being moved further aside in each photograph, with the final photograph depicting a naked vagina. Also discovered in this location was a photograph of a child’s bare bottom and a photograph of a little girl. Creech made the assumption that the vaginal photographs and the photograph of the bottom were of the same girl….
Murphy recalled describing the nature and content of the photographs to Finn.
Finn recalled being told by Murphy there were a couple of similar images where the face was not visible. It was an infant female maybe 2 – 4 years old,
naked, with the focus on the genitalia.
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.
I would like to comment on just one aspect of your article. In the 1970’s in a number of heterodox seminaries, they did their best to weed on “rigid” (i.e. orthodox) seminarians. God help you if they saw you saying the rosary. These professors did immense damage to the Church by spoiling good vocations either by brainwashing or pushing them out if they resisted. Needless to say, homosexuals were already at least tolerated — preparing for the crisis that was to come. Cardinal Pell (in Australia) found this problem of orthodoxy there too. He closed the seminary and started over the next year. If more bishops had had the courage and wisdom to imitate him, our Church would be very different today and much more like the spotless bride of Christ that she is called to be.