The latest news on the Robert Finn-Shawn Ratigan case — the emergence of a warning letter a year ago from the principal of St. Patrick Catholic School in Kansas City, North — has transformed the case into an unmitigated scandal for Bishop Finn.
From the diocese response to the letter, it is also clear that Finn and diocesan officials are trying to cover up what Finn knew and when he knew it.
What we do know is that Finn failed to report the evidence to authorities for five months and that he tried, unsuccessfully, to deal with the wayward priest “in house.”
The four and a half page letter, written by school principal Julie Hess, details troubling and perverted behavior by Father Ratigan around children at the school.
It is clear from the letter that Ratigan, who now stands charged with three counts of possessing child pornography (computer images downloaded from his camera), was obsessed with children and spent most of his workdays at the school, instead of on church business.
(I don’t have the letter, but here’s a link to it, as first published yesterday on tonyskc.com.)
Hess and other staff members, including many teachers at St. Patrick School, were obviously very concerned about Ratigan’s preoccupation with the children and his “hands-on” approach to them. It’s apparent that Hess took notes for a long time and left nothing to chance or speculation.
She simply recounted facts — very troubling facts, including an instance when a parishioner who was helping out at the church one day couldn’t find her young son, whom she had brought with her. When she called out for him, he came around and said, “I was in Father Shawn’s office. He wanted to show me something.”
Hess went on to say, “The mother was very uncomfortable with this since Father has a back room off his office that no one can access and her son was alone with the priest.”
Hess sent the letter, dated May 19, 2010, to the Rev. Robert Murphy, diocesan vicar general, who is Finn’s principal deputy.
Just as troubling as the letter itself is the diocese’s “explanation” of how it was handled. Yesterday, once again, the diocese trotted out out its spokeswoman, Becky Summers, to answer questions.
Listen to what Summers told a Kansas City Star reporter:
1) “Monsignor Murphy went through each point (in the letter) with Ratigan and set clear boundaries for him.”
I’d like to know if Murphy met with him in person. Or did he talk to him on the phone, or did he even handle it by e-mail? Who knows? If it was anything but a face-to-face meeting, it was a sham.
2) The Star’s story says, “Summers said she didn’t know whether Murphy gave the memo to Bishop Robert Finn.”
WHAT? SAY THAT AGAIN — SHE DIDN’T KNOW IF FINN GOT THE MEMO?
Summers, you know, works in the same building with the bishop at 20 W. Ninth Street, Kansas City, Mo.
What’s to stop her from ambling over to Finn’s office and asking him, “Did you get the memo?” And why wouldn’t she have done just that? Is she too busy? Is he too busy?
I have no intention of trying to pin her down on this because it’s clear that giving the press the runaround and trying to keep the bishop under cover have become the top priorities. Finn and the diocese are now in full circle-the-wagons mode, and I think we’re going to see a lot of stone-walling from here on out.
It’s going to be a long summer for Becky Summers.
In my opinion, the stone-walling and obfuscation are only going to hurt the diocese, however. This case has now reached the point where it is obvious that Finn put his desire to see Ratigan — reportedly a fellow conservative — continue functioning as a priest far ahead of the safety and well-being of the children.
Finn has been bishop six years. When he arrived from St. Louis, lugging his conservative track record, I think a lot of liberal and moderate Catholics were circumspect. They have been waiting to see how he might handle an ethical dilemma, along the lines of alleged priestly impropriety.
Now it has happened. And Finn has completely blown it. He has shown his colors: It’s clergy and conservative ideology above all. The laity, especially the children, are secondary.
I think what we’ll see now is many Kansas City area Catholics leaving the church. For many who were teetering, this will be the last straw.
Also, this is going to cost the diocese hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe millions, in future contributions. Many people are going to ask themselves, “Why would I contribute to a corrupt organization?”
And they’re either going to keep their money in their pockets or give to other, more credible, organizations.
Footnote: At 4:40 p.m., The Star posted a story saying that Finn had held an afternoon news conference at which he said, “I must also acknowledge my own failings. As bishop, I owe it to people to say things must change.”
The Star paraphrased Finn as saying that Murphy, the vicar general, briefed him on Hess’s letter at the time but that he (Finn) did not ask to see it first hand. “Hindsight makes it clear that I should have requested from Monsignor Murphy an actual copy of the report,” Finn said.
Finn said that Murphy met with Ratigan in person after Murphy got Hess’s letter.
Finn said he would be holding meetings to determine how best to change the diocese’s internal structure, reporting and procedures, presumably regarding cases of alleged priestly misconduct.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
The church leaders also had a powerful disregard for the community at large. This man did not just inhabit the world of the church.
In the meantime, in the midst of the biggest scandal this diocese has known in years, the big issue over at the Catholic Key blog is “The Marine Corps Heritage Foundation has dedicated a window in the Semper Fidelis Memorial Chapel at the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Triangle, Va, to Servant of God Vincent Capodanno.”
And it’s from May 18.
Those Catholics just don’t question priests or–God forbid–their “monsignors” or bishops AT ALL.
Not even if it’s about protecting their children.
Sad. Sick. Pathetic. Pitiful.
“Respect life,” indeed.
What was that quote? Oh, yeah, here it is:
“And whosoever shall offend one of [these] little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.”
And who said it?
Good points, Remley and Rage. Thank you for your contributions to the discussion.
I was talking to a person who works at a local parish, and she thinks Finn is really naive more than devious, that he seriously thought by telling Ratigan to stay away from kids that he would.
How could he think that after the revelations of the last decade? I just don’t get it.
Oh, and my source at my local parish also said the priest there kept drawing a distinction between being a pedophile and being a garden-variety molester. Do we really need to do that? Doesn’t a priest who’s either one still need to be removed? But I noticed that recent study that came out a few weeks back made the same distinction.
When you tell a priest to “stay away from children” that tells me that you are already covering up.
It’s really a distinction without a difference. The first duty of anyone is the protection of children not the protection of perpetrators.
Same old, same ole! Religion and business as usual!
MoKan observer of church rumors for half a century!
Finn is naive?
No.
Finn thought if he told Ratigan to lay off he would obey, like this was 1950. That’s more like arrogance.
But it’s not 1950, and he can’t say he’d never imagined a priest, of all people, was capable of such urges, and by the way nobody told him about it, and anyway the doctors told him they fixed the guy, and also the poor feller swore he wouldn’t do it again. Really. Okay, after this time he wouldn’t do it again.
I grew up with mostly great priests riding the wave of church reform. I can’t stand the feudal throwbacks running it now.
When I was a Catholic, I loved the mystery of the Latin Mass.
If the church is so forward looking, reforming, staying abreast of the congregation’s needs etc. etc. than why not rid themselves of the celibacy rule for priests?
For that matter, why not have female priests?
Jesus liked girls.
I like a little mystery with my ecclesiastical pursuits.
Nothing like the Latin Mass, being said by a chick to really keep ya wantin more.
If all priests were girls, this scandal doesn’t exist.
If priests could marry, this scandal doesn’t exist.
If priests could marry, the Catholic Church wouldn’t be hurting so bad for priests, and the shitheads get drummed out pretty fast!!
I kinda like the idea of a female pope too.
That hat looks like Nicki Minaj would wear it to the Grammys.
And all those bright vestment colors???
Come on, that is total chick stuff.
If Danika Patrick can race a car at 220 mph in circles with a bunch of Bud drinkin baddaassses, then girls should sure as heck be able to say a high mass without the world coming to an end.
By the way, my bona fides are a Cathlic education (Love them Jesuits! Really.) with time served as an altar boy, so, if I have offended any one, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.
I’ve been traveling for work and am just now catching up; I am beyond appalled.
I must amend my original comment: “…organized religion is no longer a viable institution in the modern era, indeed it has become an open threat to the body politic.”
I do not say this lightly, or with intent to bruise anyone for whom an active ‘spiritual’ life is important. However, when a heinous crime has been committed but the authorities refuse to investigate and arrest everyone involved because of their “religious” status, our society has ceased to function properly.
Were the child involved mine, other more satisfactory and just actions would already have occurred.
Ya know, the real problem with the church, and the world, is there ain’t enough women running things.
(SOME women, NOT Sarah Palin, jesus…)
Seriously, I remember thinkin’ years ago how much I thought Nancy Landon Kassebaum should run for president. I knew it would never happen, but she woulda been great.
Who didn’t like Maggie Thatcher with Ronnie as foil?
Elizabeth the 1st is your favorite English monarch, admit it.
Look, I’m just saying in general, the world would be a better place if girls had more input. JMO.
Cuban missile crisis????
Jackie Kennedy: “Mrs Kruschev, we are a little concerned about those missiles in Cuba.
Mrs. Kruschev: “What are those hats I keep seeing you in? You know the little pink ones?”
Jackie Kennedy: “They are called Pillbox Hats, do you like them?”
Mrs. Kruschev: “Very much!”
Jackie Kennedy: “I’ll send some to you today.”
Mrs. Kruschev: “Thank you!! Ya know what, I’ll divert my fleet north, and will pick them up in the Azores.”
Jackie Kennedy: “Great! Hey, what about this Castro fella?”
Mrs. Kruschev: “The man doesn’t have a wife. I don’t trust him. He probably smokes those nasty cigars in the house too.”
Jackie Kennedy: “Yuck. There is no Mrs. Castro?”
Mrs. Kruschev: “I’ve never seen her. We will pick up the missiles on the way back home. Can I send you anything?”
Jackie Kennedy: “Just promise to come visit!”
Mrs. Kruschev: “Can’t wait, see ya soon.”
*click*
There ya go. momontheedge for president!
Well, we won’t stop what we DON’T know keep us from jumping to conclusions, will we Jimmy C? The Bishop MUST have known about this letter! The Bishop is the “culprit”!!
Unlike other posters here, I know the people involved, and the letter from the school principal is new information. New information released by SNAP – an organization with a pre-disposition to “fixing” the Catholic Church, and plying it’s own agenda.
It’s interesting that this letter – a personnel issue handled (correctly or incorrectly) by the discipline structure in the diocese – is the latest tool in the SNAP agenda.
What is interesting is that everything the Catholic Church has set in place WORKED. Even though the police did not advise him to, Bishop Finn took him out of active ministry. Bishop Finn wasn’t afraid to help the man, after a suicide attempt, and kept him away from children while this man considered his future. Ultimately his own sins brought him down, and it was BECAUSE the Bishop was vigilant that it was discovered.
Men with this problem – pornography in this case – are manipulators. They are extremely adept at lying and covering their real motivations. The pornography use is a precursor. This much the Church has learned from hard experience.
It is interesting that the preferred “SNAP” judgment is the order of the day. The usual line: “Bishops are hiding criminals,” “The Church is hiding criminals,” “Catholicism is wrong because it won’t allow priests to marry or women to be priests” – ALL SNAP public-talking points – are now driving the media cycle.
You’re being played here JimmyC, and you don’t look too smart for allowing it. This is good guerilla media at it’s best. No questioning of the timing, authenticity, or agenda behind the letter, just picking up the SNAP ball and carry it like the good, self-righteous protector of the public SNAP would like to be!
Chuck — You have come up with it — Momontheedge for Pope!
I’m with you completely, but how about if we start her off as Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph so she can get a little church schooling under her belt and clean up this mess right here in River City before she takes on the whole, dang Catholic world?
By the way, I can vouch for her bona fides, having worked with her at a certain local paper for several years. I just hope she can juggle motherhood, bishophood and popehood; it’s a tall order!
Hmmm….I will consider it if I get to ride in the Popemobile…
Done. I know a guy…
While yours is more than a bit tongue-in-cheek, “Mom”, you know there’s a great deal to be said for this. There are people and organizations out there across the world who are doing and trying to do just that–help women with either schooling or business or both because statistically, it’s been shown, time and again, consistently, that women, when given this kind of support, make their communities much stronger. They’re more likely to help educate their kids, etc., etc. The benefits ripple out vastly.
Mo Rage — All kidding aside, I completely agree with you and Chuck.
Wow. I don’t think anything surprises me more than enablers who, when they see transgressions–severe ones, in this case–come to the defense of the person in the wrong.
Such is clearly the case here, with John, above, at 12:21.
That John would say this is “new information” is just sad, besides being wrong. It’s only new to the general public. And that’s the problem. It is certainly not new information to Bishop Finn. And again, therein lies the problem. He kept it quiet. Hello, John? That was wrong.
And “SNAP’s agenda”? Apparently John doesn’t know SNAP is Catholics. And they’re Catholics who want their church run right and run well. That didn’t happen in this case. Far from it.
“Everything the Catholic Church has set in place WORKED”?
Try telling that to Principal Hess, at St. Patrick’s, who warned Bishop Finn about Ratigan over a year ago. In the meantime, Ratigan was able to keep doing what he was doing and possibly putting these kids in harm’s way and, of course, continuing with his apparently lurid photography.
Try telling the parents of the children in St. Joe and Kansas City both, who were around Ratigan and whose child was photographed over this–what?–at least a year, while Bishop Finn didn’t do anything about a situation he was warned of?
No, I–and a lot of others–beg your pardon, John, the Catholic’s virtually non-existent system didn’t work. At all.
So, JimmyC, you and I both know you’re not being “played,” not by a long shot.
Bishop Finn didn’t apologize because you or I or anyone else are being “played.” Bishop Finn apologized because he and the Catholic Church and their “system” failed these children, their parents and their respective churches.
And no apologist or enabler can explain that away.
Or make this right.
“Bishop Finn didn’t apologize because you or I or anyone else are being ‘played.’ Bishop Finn apologized because he and the Catholic Church and their ‘system’ failed these children, their parents and their respective churches.”
Sorry, but that’s not true.
Bishop Finn didn’t apologize because their “system” failed these children…
HIS APOLOGY WAS ONLY BECAUSE THEY WERE CAUGHT!!!
NO APOLOGY WOULD HAVE BEEN FORTHCOMING IF THE COMPUTER IMAGES WEREN’T DISCOVERED!!!
Thanks, Rage. I was waiting to see who would stuff the towel down John’s throat.
I commend the principal of St. Patrick’s for writing this letter and bringing it to the attention of the diocese, even though the letter was ignored. To me, she is a hero. I can’t imagine how discouraging it must have been for her and other St Patrick’s faculty to start another school year last August only to have Shawn Ratigan still there as pastor. Bishop Finn better not even dream of firing this principal for blowing the whistle.
From John-
“It is interesting that the preferred “SNAP” judgment is the order of the day. The usual line: “Bishops are hiding criminals,” “The Church is hiding criminals,” “Catholicism is wrong because it won’t allow priests to marry or women to be priests” – ALL SNAP public-talking points – are now driving the media cycle.”
Yeah, that is “interesting”, because it is all dead on the money. Using prima facie evidence as an exculpatory argument is an “interesting” approach, but in no way exonerates the organization, the perps, or the crimes.
John’s argument may or may not be valid from a time machine point of view. If we go back in time 10 years or so, when these Catholic abominations were first made public, then his defense of the church (I am reminded here of King Henry the 8th, “Defender of the Faith”, hypocrisy is timless.), may have some merit.
At this late date, with the confirmation (nice word there) of the abominations perpetrated on the most defenceless of the church’s wards, by those heretofore revered and admired as trusted friends, leaders and conduits to our own spirituality, we can only gasp at the disconnect between real time events, and the patina of stupidity, denial and criminality that cloaks the Catholic Church.
John, it is time for the Catholic Church to acknowledge and lance the boil of perversion and abhorant behaviour by not only the perpetrators of these most horrific of crimes, but the enablers and protectors of same.
I am NOT a Catholic hater. I was raised Catholic and believe that most of the human beings (They are NOT infallible) that worship, work and live as Catholics, wheter they are priests, bishops, nuns, laypeople et al, are wonderful honest god fearing Americans who want the best for their neighbors and the world.
Bishop Finn is a didactic full time apparatchik for a fanatical view that needs an opponent to become stronger.
Orwellian, by nature, and by design, manipulation, not salvation, is the end game.
Reperpetuation of the power of the organization is paramount, NOT “The Flock”.
I’m thinkin about how grouchy Jesus got when money became too big a deal in the Temple.
Jesus wails on some folks, kicks a little ass, over money!
How about he finds out, the temple priests are f—ing the kids?
These folks sent girls into the desert when they had thier period.
Do the math.
Its 4:52 on a Sat. and I am not going to mass so I can skip the Sunday services.
I am persona non grata, divorced and looking at a hard millenium in purgatory.
So, drunk, as opposed to holy (Its the weekend, I’m home, shut up.), Irish whiskey in my belly, I send this missive, from my girl friend Shelly—
“Like a child from the womb,
Like a Ghost from tthe tomb,
I arise and unbuild it again.”
Jokin about my girl friend—-REMAKE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE SPIRIT OF JESUS, NOT MAN!!
More booze–goodnight. :)
for John and all:
http://moravings.blogspot.com/2011/05/quote-of-day_27.html
Oh Jimmy, how sweet – “stuff the towel down John’s throat”?
I’m not new to anti-catholicism veiled as “scandal outrage”, and it is SO old hat.
YAWN……
Chuck
Sadly, you are typical of the “I was raised Catholic, but…..” crowd. You don’t really appear to know much about the faith, and prefer to demonize the leadership rather than use reason and human charity to understand the issues.
It is easier to be outraged than to be realistic, and it is simpler to demonize leadership or faithful Catholics than to consider the complications and realities of a living Church full of failed people.
It seems you won’t do the hard spiritual work to reconcile your divorce with the Faith you once professed, so now you take the job of Pope for yourself and bleat for the Church to be remade in the image YOU desire.
Reconsider your faith, Chuck, and know that by demonizing the Church, you cannot solve your own pain.
Mo Rage (nice subtle name there…..)
Bishop Finn came before the public in a hastily called news conference to accept the humiliation for the Church for the actions of this deceitful man, his priest, and the appearance of inaction for his own support staff, regardless of the justice or quality of their actions.
It was the act of taking responsibility for actions he had no part in, and it is puzzling for you because it is unheard of in this culture.
It is his job as the Bishop to suffer the humiliation for the sins of his sons, and your triumphalism is so silly and immature as to be a caricature of a kind of view of reality that is so selfish as to be laughable.
It is obvious the controls the Church put in place worked because Mr. Ratigan never abused any children directly, and while his sin of child pornography use is shocking, it is far from rare. The Catholic Church’s vigilance did indeed work, for the Church well knows pornography use precedes actual abuse practices. Thus Her vigilance DID forestall more tragedy.
For people like yourself, the Church will never pass muster on this matter, for it would leave you without a club with which to beat Her. So your attacks ring hollow and do not compel.
“Never abused any children directly” and you know this how? Were you on 24-hour perp watch? And what is up-skirt photography if not an abuse of privacy. Or maybe you call that “indirect abuse” and thus it’s of a much “lesser” category. Once the word “inappropriate” appeared in the letter a year ago there should have been whistles, klaxons, sirens, and screams at the diocese… there was just a hush.
Totally agree. Taking an up-skirt shot of a girl is abuse, dude.
John,
I’ll only address those parts you addressed specifically to me.
For your information, it is, in fact, a subtle name because it happens to be a triple entendre.
Sure, Bishop Finn “came before the public in a hastily called news conference to accept the humiliation for the Church for the actions of this deceitful man, his priest, and the appearance of inaction for his own support staff, regardless of the justice or quality of their actions.” Sure.
But the fact is, John, he was about a year and a half late and that’s what the principal, teachers and parents, along with parishioners were and are upset about. It’s was way late.
You say: “It was the act of taking responsibility for actions he had no part in, and it is puzzling for you because it is unheard of in this culture.”
You’re mistaken here. It isn’t puzzling for me at all. This is extremely typical behavior in the Catholic Church and it goes back at least decades, if not centuries, tragically. I don’t know how you got the “puzzling” assumption. The Catholic Church has had, sadly, countless situations like these, where a priest abused his position and it was ignored, to the harm of the children and parents and parish. It’s happened all across the world, sickeningly enough.
I assure you, there is no “triumphalism” in me or my writing about this. People just want the right and correct thing done here, now, even though the Bishop ignored it for so long, and then we want the right things done in the future.
Many of us out here, Catholics and non-Catholics alike disagree mightily with you that “the controls the Church put in place worked” since Fr. Ratigan wasn’t dealt with the 17 months earlier, when the principal in St. Joseph called attention to the situation with her now-famous letter. Worst of all, the parents of these children, again, in St. Joseph and Kansas City, both, would disagree with you mightily.
The Catholic Church will “pass muster” with everyone out here–forget me–when situations like these either don’t arise because there aren’t any or they are dealt with promptly, directly and thoroughly and not ignored or swept under a figurative rug.
I’m not “attacking”, John, but this is all extremely compelling, for sure.
Everyone wants the right things done, now and in the future, as I said. Here’s hoping it happens and as soon as possible.
One more point from this morning’s story in The Star:
“Finn said Friday that he has never seen the pictures.”
What the hell? What kind of manager is that? He doesn’t want to see the evidence? How is he going to make a judgment for himself, if he doesn’t take off his rose-colored glasses and eyeball the images?
This fellow isn’t fit to lead a parade!
John, that holier than thou, finger pointing self righteous approach is great if your postion, and the postion of the “Defendent” (Here is hoping there are criminal charges for more than just ‘Father’ Ratigan.) is tenable with respect to innocence.
“Sadly, you are typical of the “I was raised Catholic, but…..” crowd.” Guilty as charged. The “I was raised a Catholic but…crowd” is an ever growing diaspora of disaffected, disenfranchised ex Catholics who, some by choice (me—I mentioned my divorce to emphasize the ignorance of the reduction in status in the Catholic church, for those folks who are divorced, which, with enough cash, you can sweep unde the rug and return to grace. Is that rule a South East Conference rule also? Or just a Big 12 deal, good in KC? I know it used to run around 5K.) and some through ostriczation have found more reasonable, charitable paths to their spirituality.
“You don’t really appear to know much about the faith…”
I’m sure, I pale in the face of such Catholic erudition as you claim and profess. No doubt you could bring me up to speed and I will find myself outside the walls of Damascus, drowning in epiphany. Until then, I will await my pearls, oracle.
“so now you take the job of Pope for yourself and bleat for the Church to be remade in the image YOU desire…”
Absolutely.
You may not like my humor, but let me repeat, the church WOULD be light years better off with females as priests and a female pope every now and again.
Lets review John. Over the last several years, incessant scandals with Male Priests having sex with and abusing little boys and girls are front page news all over the ENTIRE world.
I can’t think of a more egegious betrayal of office, than your local priest f—ing your children.
Your apology and excuses for this behaviour, and the defacto acceptance of same by Bishop Finn through his error or his design is Joesep Goebbles like in its stupidity and deceit.
” Reconsider your faith, Chuck, and know that by demonizing the Church, you cannot solve your own pain.”
Thanks for the advice. But my pain is incosequential (And quickly resolved with Irish Whiskey, another great Catholic tradition.) when I consider teh pain of the parents, relatives and the children themselves who will carry deep and sickening scars for life, while guys like Bishop Nero, er…, Finn fiddle while the fire gets ever closer.
One more time, your position and your argument is untenable and absurd.
Well, that’s not quite true, really. Principal Hess, up in St. Joseph did discover them more than a year and a half ago. Then, more photos yet were discovered on another computer down here in Kansas City, later, this year.
I see what you’re saying, sure, and the system did fail, and the Bishop did try to push this off and/or ignore it and hope it would go away but they were discovered. They were just, secondarily and thankfully, discovered later, by a larger audience and that’s what finally blew the lid on this thing, of course.
As an active Catholic of the KC-StJ Diocese I pray that the Bishop himself, as well as Ratigan will be prosecuted for the danger they both pose to the people they have purported to serve.
This is not the first instance in which Finn has protected the priesthood FIRST (at least in the form of individual priests who share his ‘vision’–the highly clerical one). This was bound to increase his own bravado, as well as those loyal to him and pave the way for just this kind of tragedy.
Adding insult to injury, Finn’s first major ‘teaching’ in the form of a pastoral letter, addresses the dangers of pornography! Guess he might want to revisit that effort since he was unable to recognize it or perhaps, even examine the evidence that his own faithful tried on numerous occasions to make him aware of…Oh, but those were lay people, not the ordained.
How deeply I had hoped that, in time, this seemingly rigid and self-important cleric would grow in humility and wisdom and become a pastor to us. How painful it was to see him obliterate the staff that had served so many faithfully. Was he self-righteous or just ill informed? Sadly, an answer to that question may be found in this scandal and his “management” of it.
This is MY church and no Bishop, priest or scandal will take it from me. I owe so very much to the Church, to the wonderful pastors, sisters and lay people who have and always will put others first–the people, not the institution.
Sorry, John, but you really need to put the Kool-Aid away!
Thank you, sadnmad, for that eloquent indictment. That rigidity and self-importance contributed greatly to my departure from the church.
Tierney…how about the Vince Rogers and newly ordained priest in an affair?? Lots of denial..lots of arrogance. I think that more than our children are “at risk” in this newly super-clerical Diocese.
I haven’t heard about the case you’re talking about, sadnmad. Where can I find out more? Hasn’t been in the paper, has it?
Chuck,
I note that John is telling like it is. Does the truth hurt? What is this holier than thou thing?
No need to get so excited because he points out that you didn’t know the religion that you were so close to. He is just frustrated because you don’t know what you lost. Isn’t it good to know someone cares?
“You may not like my humor, but let me repeat, the church WOULD be light years better off with females as priests and a female pope every now and again.”
If it didn’t obey Jesus it wouldn’t be the Church.
“Lets review John. Over the last several years, incessant scandals with Male Priests having sex with and abusing little boys and girls are front page news all over the ENTIRE world.”
And every study finds that somewhere between 0.2 to 4% of priests are involved. Even protestant pastors molest more. It is also apparent that the voluminous molestation outside of the Catholic Church doesn’t get the same interest from the liberal media. Have you ever wondered why?
“I can’t think of a more egegious betrayal of office, than your local priest f—ing your children.”
Me neither but getting hit by a comet is probably more likely. Such a small proportion of priests were involved that I can’t think of a safer group to leave the children with.
“Your apology and excuses for this behaviour, and the defacto acceptance of same by Bishop Finn through his error or his design is Joesep Goebbles like in its stupidity and deceit.”
He doesn’t do enough about a letter he hasn’t seen and then the priest turns out to get his jollies looking at kiddie porn on the net and the Bishop keeps him away from kids and his subordinate reports the priest to the police. How is that acceptance?
“John, it is time for the Catholic Church to acknowledge and lance the boil of perversion and abhorant behaviour by not only the perpetrators of these most horrific of crimes, but the enablers and protectors of same”
So the profuse apologies from the human head of the Church and all the actions taken are not enough. Why aren’t you asking other groups to do so with the perpetrators and enablers and protectors?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/boy-scouts-sex-abuse-pena_n_550369.html
http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/sexual-predators-being-allowed-to-teach/article31756.html
Is it because there is an active liberal media focus on the Catholic Church because it doesn’t support gay rights and abortion?
All,
Does anti-Catholicism blind people or have some people here been on Mars?
Do some people really believe that SNAP are anything but an anti-Catholic group who pump an anti-Catholic agenda (with a type of support offered to victims who are then used to promote the SNAP cause). Haven’t you read their comments?
Do some people believe that coverups haven’t occurred throughout the world in other organisations? It used to be normal to avoid doing dirty laundry in public to prevent scandal now the accolades go to the transparent.
I can’t work out whether extreme naivety is involved or some of you are just being disingenous due to your extreme prejudice against Catholicism.
JimmyC,
What if Finn doesn’t like looking at kiddie porn? Does that make him such a bad manager. When the porn was discovered the Church reported the priest to the police and took steps to keep him away from children. Why would looking at kiddie porn as well make him a better manager?
Holy cow, that is being such a massive apologist for Bishop Finn AND the Catholic Church that it’s nearly overwhelming. That is sad. That is frustrating. That is nearly maddening.
I’ll only touch a little bit here because clearly, in this lifetime, you’re never going to “get it”, apparently.
–The Catholic Church really does need and should have women priests, even if you can’t wrap your mind around it. That whole “against Jesus’ teachings” thing is just so much out of date, patriarchal nonsense;
–SNAP really is a group of Catholics FOR a good, functioning Catholic Church, trying to work from the inside on what is a really old, out of date, non-functioning, dysfunctional organization and set of rules (meaning, the Catholic Church);
–No, “the profuse apologies from the human head of the Church and all the actions taken are not enough” precisely because Bishop Finn (read: the Catholic Church) sat on their hands once again and tried to protect a priest instead of trying to protect the members of the church in general, but more specifically, the children;
–Your description of this situation: “He”–Bishop Finn–“doesn’t do enough about a letter he hasn’t seen”, is pathetic. Sure, he didn’t see the letter but he didn’t see the letter because he didn’t look into a) something he was warned about and b) one of the THE most important matters that could come before him, which should trump all other matters in his responsibilities. And you don’t get that. Way to apologize for Bishop Finn and his shirking of duties.
A) it’s a tired, pitiful, really flawed religion and B) it has a large group of people, all across the planet that has abused it’s members and C) finally, worse yet, it has people in power who protect the abusers instead of holding them accountable both internally, within the organization and externally, to the police and authorities.
That’s some organization you got there.
(Dont’ think it’s a “tired, pitiful, really flawed religion”? Show me where priests, Cardinals, Bishops, Popes and Purgatory are in the Bible, just for starters. And please don’t give me that “on this rock I will build my church thing as a reason or excuse for the pope, please).
Have a nice day.
Thank you, Mo Rage. Thanks for taking the time to respond point by point to Deni. Just trying to read his or her comment was dispiriting to me. I’ve indicated several times that there still are a lot of people out there with blinders on — blind to the reality of Finn and Co.’s misdirection — and I’m surprised that Deni is only the second to pipe up in this comments department. The thing is, there aren’t enough of them to keep the diocese afloat, at the level that it is accustomed to, anyway. Finances probably will turn out to be the critical element here, and that’s where it’s likely to come crashing down on the current administration.
You’re welcome, of course, Jimmy, and you’re right about the money, for sure, but when it comes to people’s kids, I think that’s where most Catholics really absorbed in and by this are raising heck (Cain?) and going to continue to. I think that’s why they’re calling for “heads to roll” on this, right up to and including B. Finn. The results will be interesting. If the church members let this go this time, they’re making a big and sad mistake. People need to look beyond these people’s frocks and demand accountability. You’d think that would be easy and obvious. We’ll see.