Bishop Finn, tick-tock…
In the New York Times, Laurie Goodstein has the chronology and narrative of the Father Ratigan case in Missouri that led to Thursday’s conviction of Bishop Robert Finn for failing to report a suspect abuser. Most of the facts have been public, but set out like this they tell a devastating story that sounds like it was discovered in a time capsule buried pre-2002.
But it was in December 2010 that Finn and diocesan officials were told about suspected child porn on Ratigan’s laptop — and that news came after they had received repeated warnings about his behavior. Following the pornography discovery, Ratigan attempted suicide. And yet…
He [Ratigan] left messages apologizing to his family for “the harm caused to the children or you.” When he survived, he was sent first to a hospital, and then to Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist in Pennsylvania selected by Bishop Finn. The bishop testified that he was told by the psychiatrist that Father Ratigan was not a risk to children, and had been falsely accused by the school principal.
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.”
The bishop assigned Father Ratigan to serve as a chaplain to the Franciscan Sisters of the Holy Eucharist, in Independence, Mo. He placed seven restrictions on the priest, including not using computers and avoiding all contact with children. But the bishop allowed him, on a “trial” basis, to celebrate Mass for youth groups at the prayer center that the sisters ran.
Over the next five months, Father Ratigan, who is now 46 attended a sixth-grader’s birthday party, co-celebrated a child’s confirmation, communicated with children on his Facebook page, hosted an Easter egg hunt and attended a parade, the testimony recounts. Invited to dinner at the home of parishioners, he was caught taking photographs, under the table, up their daughter’s skirt, according to a federal indictment of Father Ratigan.
Neither the bishop nor any church official told church members or Father Ratigan’s large extended family — which includes many children — that the priest had been ordered to stay away from children, Darron Blankenship, a brother-in-law of Father Ratigan and a police officer who has handled child abuse cases, said in an interview on Friday.
“For somebody that was under restrictions, he had free rein,” Officer Blankenship said. “He just went and did what he wanted.”
I’m not sure how the bishops can regain their credibility unless Bishop Finn resigns, but in my RNS story on Finn’s fate his spokesman says the bishop intends to stay. The Vatican declined to comment, and Bishop Conlon, the USCCB point man on abuse, reiterated the hierarchy’s commitment to following the civil and canon law requirements that Finn violated.
My sense is that the powers that be are waiting to see how the public and diocese will react. Maybe they will act quickly. Maybe they hope it’ll blow over sufficiently to allow Finn to stay on, or to be “promoted” some place in a couple years to save face.
Maybe they’ll take Bill Donohue’s line that this was much ado about nothing — Finn was convicted of a misdemeanor not a felony (true), it did not involve child pornography (Ratigan plead guilty last month to five federal counts of possessing and trying to create child pornography) and that “no child was ever abused,” though child pornography is an abuse violation under the bishops’ charter.
The Catholic League supports harsh penalties for child sexual abusers, and for those who cover it up. But it also supports equal justice for all, and given what we know of what is going on in many other communities, religious as well as secular, we find the chorus of condemnations targeting Bishop Finn to be as unfair as they are contrived.
Is that the story the American bishops want to tell?
Tags: Bishop Robert Finn
Two points in the article have struck me:
- “He (Ratigan)….joined Bishop Robert W. Finn and dozens of students on a bus trek to Washington for the ‘March for Life,’ a big annual anti-abortion rally.”
Being prolife can cover a multitude of sins in our church today.
- “Monsignor Murphy was given immunity for cooperating with the prosecution. He testified that he turned Father Ratigan in because he had grown concerned that he was truly a pedophile. The monsignor said that when the bishop learned he had turned in Father Ratigan, “It seemed he was angry.”
What made Bishop Finn so angry? And more importantly, what is going to happen to Msgr. Murphy, Julie Hess, principal of the parochial school, and Julie Creech, diocesan technology staff member? They are true heroes.
Another hero, Rebecca Summers, then the director of communications.
Nauseating.
I sent an e-mail to the USCCB saying I thought the bishop should resign and that his next assignment should be working with adults and not children. That maybe he could work supporting one of the Church’s charitable organizations, fundraising for CRS or some other worthy project. There is lots of good work that needs doing in the Church that doesn’t involve children. I tried to e-mail the Vatican but couldn’t figure out where or to whom to e-mail it. The Vatican doesn’t have a very good website.
The following is available from several sources:
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio
Apostolic Nunciature of the Holy See
3339 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington D.C. 20008 United States.
Phones: (+1) 202-333-7121 Fax: (+1) 202-337-4036
Email: nuntius@worldnet.att.net
Misdemeanor or felony, this is still what is called a “crime of moral turpitude.” I don’t see how a man found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude can continue to serve as a bishop. Not only does he lack credibility, but his continued and officially unchallenged role as a bishop undermines the mission and credibility of the whole church. Also, I don’t see how there can be a policy of “zero tolerance” toward priests when there is a practice of tolerance for bishops convicted of crimes. You can’t run a credible organization that way.
Bill Donohue says that only the New York Times and Kansas City Star put the story on the front page, which implies that these papers were somehow unfair in playing it up. In fact, it would be journalistic malpractice to downplay a story of this magnitude. The Times was right to run the story on page one – twice, in fact. Laurie Goodstein’s tick-tock was an excellent follow. The speed with which the verdict and sentence were handed down, combined with the noise of the presidential campaign, may have kept the story from getting the full media attention it demands.
If it is true, as David says, that other bishops are waiting to see if the controversy blows over in the media, that would mean the bishops have not learned their lesson yet. From the start, the bishops (as a group) have undertaken reforms regarding sexual abuse only to the extent that a media whirlwind made life too uncomfortable not to do so. Is that still the case?
In a word: he needs to go
Thank you, Jack.
I don’t know why I should be shocked that Donohue says this is “much ado about nothing,” but I am.
I’ll betcha he’s still in power by this time next year. And in a higher position by this time in two years. And higher still in five years.
(Sad to think of the good old days when I was a child in Kansas City, and the original doors were still on the Jackson County Courthouse instead of those CHEAP LOUSY aluminum doors, and Edwin Vincent O’Hara was bishop.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_County_Courthouse_(Kansas_City,_Missouri)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Vincent_O'Hara
Bishop Finn is in complete denial. And that seems to be typical of Catholic bishops when they are accused of moral failure.
I say Msgr. Murphy deserves a medal. He is the second priest I have heard of who actually went to the police when his bishop refused to. What should happen is Msgr. Murphy should be made bishop of the Kansas City diocese.
Everybody email Cardinal Vigano — NOW.
Laurie Goodstein’s closing line on Finn’s understanding that the problem was “only pornography” couldn’t be more cruelly ironic, coming from the man whose first pastoral letter 5 years ago was the 20-page “Blessed are the Pure in Heart: A Pastoral Letter on the Dignity of the Human Person and the Dangers of Pornography”, (2/21/07). His diocesan newspaper highly praised his efforts on the problem.
http://www.diocese-kcsj.org/_docs/Pastoral-02-07.pdf
http://www.catholickey.com/index.php3?gif=news.gif&mode=view&issue=20070223&article_id=4375
Thanks, Jack Barry. I just sent my email. And I’m going to keep that address for future use when necessary.
Link to Finn letter above contains garbage at the end. Try again:
http://www.diocese-kcsj.org/_docs/Pastoral-02-07.pdf
Email to nuncio sent.
Here’s an address for Pope Benedict. I’ll see if it works.
benedictxvi@vatican.va
Later: Nope, it doesn’t. And my email to the papal nuncio is “unknown” at that address.
You might know.
If some teachers knew about Fr. Ratigan, weren’t they too obliged to report him — and the chancery? Msgr. Murphy is the one to admire in all this, even if he was slow ot act. A number of others seem to have known.
Ann you are right; Nuncio email bounced and the website has no email addresses.. it has a 1990 fax system though. also couriers with wax sealed letters from illiterate emperors
My e-mail to Archbishop Vigano bounced back twice. Other peope’s went through? Some other website another way to contact the Vatican is via the Vatican Press Office (?) and gave this e-mail address, which went through: av@pccs.va
I think as part of the new evangelization one should be able to leave a message on the Vatican website.
I am a firm believer that Bishop Finn should be fired. Joe Paterno was fired and the other men at Penn State will be tried for their part in the events there. I would bet there will be jail time not probation. If you go to the Kansas City Newspaper website you can read the testimony that was stipulated (all parties agreed this is what would come to light if it had gone to trial). It is very clear that Bishop Finn did much more than fail to report. He enabled a child abuser to continue abusing children. These little girls will struggle with many things over their lives due to the violation they endured. Some of the victimization could have been avoided if Bishop Finn had done his job. If the USCCB is serious about protecting children they will advocate for Bishop Finn’s removal. This might restore some of the “shredded” credibility. This is not a pro or anti Catholic issue, this is a STOP CHILD ABUSE ISSUE!
I wrote to the Press Office. It seems to have gotten there :-)
“I am a firm believer that Bishop Finn should be fired.”
A critical question today: By whom???
Money talks, and the laity must make its absence talk louder!!!
The people of a local church must reassert their God-given right to select their local church leadership (and this means, too, that the “bishop of Rome” should be selected by the people of Rome).
And if the people have the right of selection, they must also exercise — when necessary — their God-given right of episcopal termination.
To the folks in the KC-St Joe diocese: Speak up — Withhold!!!
I feel a sense of drowning fatigue as the deja vu of Finn’s case comes into view. Been there, done that for a decade now. That Finn is the first bishop to be criminally convicted is a travesty of justice. Just read http://www.bishop-accountability.org.
The fact that bishops/cardinals/pope need media pressure to do the right thing, instead of stepping up NOW, TODAY, to publicly fire a bishop who enabled the abuse of our children is telling. As someone wrote above, pressure from survivors’ lawsuits and the media — from the outside — is necessary to get any action. How sad and how disgusting.
The issue is not the merits of Finn’s case but the power dynamics of hierarchical control. How to preserve one’s position is the key issue. Somehow I hear a diocesan lawyer pleading before a judge that bishops need the right to practice their faith by offering forgiveness and redemption.
I have enough experience to think that the inability to email nuncios and up the chain of command is not accidental. You can’t have noisy laity disturbing your inbox.
So, let’s raise the roof again in the public square, because silence is not an option. Not in any expectation of voluntary clerical response. Unfortunately, most of us do not have the money for full page ads in major media to achieve significant visibility.
Money talks though. I have come to believe it was not any public pressure that finally convinced the Vatican to accept Law’s pleading to resign. It was the loss of support of major donors who broke ranks after the Foley documents were released.
If the big money contributors in MO and OD withdrew their support, Finn would be gone in an instant, whether under some fig leaf or not. Am I too cynical or just realistic?
Agreed, Carolyn. If the big donors go *south* and insert pressure behind the scenes, Rome will promote him *up* in some way – e.g. Vatican appointment to some lesser department, commission, etc.
But, there is precedent when even that doesn’t work. In the early 1990′s influential, big donors, and catholic powerbrokers arranged a deal for Bishop Grahamann to resign after the Rudy Kos trial. Supposedly, he agreed and then reneged using his personal friendship with JPII to remain in office. Even the assigned coadjutor bishop gave up and was reassigned to New Jersey.
Suggest that Finn, one of four Opus Dei US bishops, sees himself as a *victim* and in the eyes of Opus Dei, his staying is the height of loyalty, long suffering, along the lines of a form of martyrdom.
As Bishop Conlon stated well this week – the USCCB still doesn’t get it and they have no credibility and he doesn’t see that they will in his lifetime.
So none of you ordinary folks can e-mail the pope or his ambassador?
Remember:
The ecclesiastical powers-that-be don’t really WANT your stinkin’ input: THEY have all the answers. THEY are ontologically superior to you shekel-dropping riffraff.
Let’s not overlook canon 212 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Please note, especially, section 3 which is so chock-full of qualifications that it essentially renders any feedback unworthy of serious consideration by the hierarchs (even Louisville’s archbishop, Joseph Kurtz, relied on section 3 a few years ago to justify squelching lay feedback in the local church newspaper).
Drop your shekels into the weekly collection plate.
Support the (arch)bishop’s annual appeal.
Remember Holy Mother Church in your will.
Be good little sheople.
But otherwise abide by canon 212′s section 1.
Papa knows best.
And he doesn’t need to explain why.
JJ: In terms of electing bishops. Be careful what you wish for. Remember the American people elected George W Bush twice (or at least once). And a bunch of old, celibate bishops elected John XXIII.
“I wrote to the Press Office. It seems to have gotten there :-)”
And “there” it likely will remain, Ann.
But God bless you for tryin’!
I included Julie Creech, the computer systems manager for the diocese, among the heroes in this story. Now I am not so sure.
I forgot she had testified that when she spoke to Bishop Finn about the pornographic content on Ratigan’s lap top, the bishop said: “Sometimes boys will be boys.”
Shortly after, her attorney said his client realized after her deposition that she had “misspoken” about Finn purportedly saying “boys will be boys,” and she did not remember him saying that.
Yeah, Anthony, democracy — civil or ecclesial — can be messy.
And a few “old, celibate bishops” (think: Ottaviani et al) used their Vatican positions and influence to sabotage the renewal called for by Vatican II.
It cuts both ways.
I’ll take democracy, though.
A better chance of transparency and accountability.
Carolyn,
Please don’t despair. The conviction of Bishop Finn is indeed a very significant victory for the children, and for you and all the others who have worked so hard to bring justice and healing for the little ones. No, Rome isn’t ready to see the facts yet, but it will come. The Finn conviction is bound to make at least some in the Vatican take note.
Thank you again.
Electing bishops, pastors, etc. is a good idea but only IF, like elected governmental officials, they can be voted out after a set term.
The Anglicans have fared reasonably well in electing their bishops via a house of clergy and a house of laity, with subsequent approval by the house of bishops.
Let’s face it, folks: the current RCC way is proving to be disasterous by the day. Another way is worth trying.
And to echo what has been said about: Remember the 11th commandment – Thou shalt NOT fund Fiends and Fools.
If you do, then kwithcherbitchin.
Is it possible for the people of Finn’s diocese to fire him themselves? With no army and no weapons, Bp Finn’s authority only rests on their acceptance of it. If they shun him, boo him, ignore him, cut him off, he is powerless. Theoretically at least, anything’s possible… it’s just a matter of being united.
The US Department of State’s website provides the following email address for the Office of the Apostolic Nuncio: nuntiususa@nuntiususa.org
Today the NYT has an editorial on the Finn case. It ends with:
” At a minimum, Catholic officials concerned about church credibility should press for the resignation of Bishop Finn for having abetted the scandal.”
Yay, NYT!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/opinion/justice-ventures-up-the-church-hierarchy.html
I wonder whether the bishops realize that by remaining silent about felonious bishops they compound their own woes. Don’t they realize that the quieter they are about their own failings the less they are trusted? Can’t they see that people — including politicians who control purse strings — will not trust what they say? Can’t they see that people *have reason* not to trust what they say?
Don’t they realize that already their name is mud? Why can’t they see that their bad behavior is a *cause* of the lessening of respect for religious freedom????
The e-mail address John Drummond provided (4:45 pm ) seems to work. Thanks!
Thanks, John Drummond. It seems to work.
Now everybody send that address to all your concerned friends. NOW.
Carolyn, regarding, “That Finn is the first bishop to be criminally convicted is a travesty of justice,” I would not despair. If Philadelphia had moved a year or two sooner, we might well have been treated to a criminal trial of a cardinal. That would have sent shudders through Rome.
As it is, consider that from the viewpoint of the hierarchy, they have dodged a major bullet in seeing an active bishop not go to jail. I suspect this is deeply, deeply embarrassing to them all. And for all the F4F rhetoric, most countries are far more hostile to Catholicism than the US. We were not far from seeing Cardinal Bevilacqua serving years in prison for conspiracy, plus failure to report. Amateur detective might want to sift through the paper trash from their chancery the next week. If anyone is ever able to prove conspiracy as well as failure to report, it will be a dark, dark day indeed.
I think we are seeing a significant misadventure, a last gasp of the preconciliar Church. This episode has opened up a significant rift among conservative Catholics. It underscores that moral failure dogs the Right as much as they like to think the Left. I think the Bishop Finn verdict is very significant. Keep in mind he was treated with much more mercy than the Catholic who divorces and later remarries. Suspended sentence for the first offense. If Bishop Finn, then why not others, for something far less scandalous?
The hierarchy has made “hoping it’ll blow over,” their life commitment. It’s who they are.
Thank you, Todd and Ann.
Progress is evident, even if slow as molasses in winter. Tonight I shall play again the 60 minutes interview with Diarmuid Martin to remind me that there is really one cardinal with insight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ShUXU8aI9k&feature=player_embedded#!
Then read Cardinal Martini’s last interview about the church being 200 years behind so I may take in his wisdom.
Eugene Kennedy just emailed his latest NCR column, titled: CARDINALS MARTINI AND BURKE: CAN YOU TELL WHICH ONE IS DEAD? His humor is balm for the soul.
As are so many comments here.
Bill deHaas has nailed Finn’s narcissism, the clerical version, where Finn sees himself as the persecuted victim suffering in imitation of Christ. There are such embarrassing quotes along that line from other bishops. Mumble, mumble. I seriously doubt Finn sees the reality of his crime. What complicit bishop does?
Any episcopal non-passive-voice, non-euphemism admissions of guilt for specific actions on the internet anywhere? Confessing sorrow for “what I did and and did not do” per John McCormack just does not cut it. I chuckle at the idea of going to confession and offering such vacuity for my sins, to which any pastor worth the name might ask, “What??”
Todd, may it be as you say, “a last gasp of the preconciliar Church.”
quoted by Conlon: “Church officials have committed themselves to follow the Charter” the policies on abuse that the bishops adopted in 2002 “and are bound by civil and canon law,” Conlon said Friday.
Bishop Conlon must not have gotten this commitment from all of the US bishops.. there are still many who lare not removing predator clergy from their parishes or contacting the police. Conlon is wrong.!!
The KC judge found Bishop Finn guilty of concealing and not reporting sex crimes against innocent little girls. There are many other bishops who could have sat in that court room and been found guilty also. This is a beginning of getting this horrific abuse stopped. We hope the families of Fr Ratigan’s victims can feel a sense of relief, even though Finn only got a sentence of probation. We hope they can sleep a bit easier tonight.
We have come this far in protecting kids because brave victims of clergy sex abuse are speaking up and contacting police. Like Finn has now learned the hard way, it is not the church officials who should be deciding or investigating child sex crimes, that is the job for law enforcement.
Thank you to the judge for this historic guilty verdict. This is just a start for some hope for the safety of our children and the future.
Judy Jones, SNAP Midwest Associate Director, USA, 636-433-2511. snapjudy@gmail.com,
(SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests)
“I chuckle at the idea of going to confession…”
Reminds me of a cartoon forwarded by Mr. McCrea not long ago showing a little boy in the confessional. Before the cleric can get a word out edgewise, the kid says, “You first!”
Thanks, John Drummond, for the address. Apologies to all who tried the earlier dead one. (I probably shouldn’t have been surprised, as Carolyn politely suggests.)
‘Tis a sad day when Catholics in the United States of America must visit an official U.S. government website to obtain the *real* e-mail address of the papal ambassador to the USA.
Might the United Nations website have the *real* e-mail address of His Holyness Pope Benedict XVI?
I dug out our old letter to JPII in 2003 when we called for the resignations of McCormack and his auxiliary Christian, with all the proper “whereas’s” and motions:
“FAX FOR PROPER ROUTING TO: Secretariat of State to His Holiness, 011390669885088″
The 011 is for international calls; maybe 39 is Vatican City State, etc. etc. We sent all snail mail certified (or its equivalent), as I recall.
nuntiususa@nuntiususa.org is cheaper.
Turns out there is a Facebook page called “Bishop Finn must go”
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bishop-Finn-Must-Go/132741796803041
“Among the posts was one that listed contact information for the Vatican and urged parishioners to voice their displeasure with Finn at the highest levels. Pope Benedict XVI alone has authority over bishops,” says a MO newspaper.
I’m not on Facebook but it seems demonstrations are being planned. Exciting to think social media can generate action. Anyone know how to navigate those pages?
‘Nothing is up-to-date in Kansas City’
Email sent to the CDF, cdf@cfaith.va
Claire –
Would the CDF handle bishops’ retirement?
“I’m not on Facebook but it seems demonstrations are being planned. Exciting to think social media can generate action. Anyone know how to navigate those pages?”
Carolyn- Just go to http://www.facebook.com and hit the signup button, then join Facebook. It’s really easy to get started, just put in the minimum required info to get an account. At the top of your Facebook page, there is a search bar “search Facebook”; type in Bishop Finn, and it will list a few Facebook pages about the Bishop. Once you go to the pages, you can select “like” for a page, then you will get posts and updates on your own Facebook page when info is posted to the page you “like”.
After you have the Facebook account, you can set up your profile and decide who can and can’t see your Facebook page. Put a little time into that; you want to maximize your security so people won’t see your info if you don’t want them to. (Security info is at https://www.facebook.com/safety and there is also a Facebook page “Facebook Security” that you can follow)
Ann – they’re the ones to judge whether he has violated canon law, I think. Sexual abuse of minors, words suggesting that the ordinations of women is up for discussion, etc.: isn’t it their job to bring egregious violations to the attention of Pope Benedict and deal with them?
Irene,
Thanks so much for the guidance. Unfortunately, I tried to sign up two days ago and was told only real names are accepted. Carolyn Disco does not pass their muster. SO, in response to their automatic email notice about genuine names, I submitted a copy of my driver’s license.
Nothing, no response, so I resubmitted my application and ran into a dead end again. By this time I had wasted over an hour trying to navigate their system and gave up. Maybe there is a message there. Finding a real person to communicate with on their staff is a pipe dream.
I believe there is another Carolyn Disco either in London or the Netherlands, but bottom line, they won’t accept my proven identity.
‘Nothing is up-to-date in Kansas City’
and a certain bishop there has “gone about as fer as he can go.”
Grant, thank you for the presentation.
According to an NCROnline report, “In early January 2011, Finn sent Ratigan to Pennsylvania for psychiatric evaluation from Rick Fitzgibbons…”
Who is this “Rick Fitzgibbons”?
During my roughly twelve years with the VA healthcare system, I hired physicians for about two years at two medical centers (Martinez, CA and Lexington, KY). An important reference was the ABMS COMPENDIUM, a printed directory of physicians board-certified by member boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). One of the member boards was (and remains) the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN). We used this volume, updated annually if I recall, to verify a physician’s specialty and, if applicable, sub-specialty certification. If a physician’s name was not in the directory, we would not hire him or her unless the doctor could present us with an official board certificate issued between compendium printings.
The other day, I checked Pennsylvania’s medical licensure website for “Rick Fitzgibbons” and for “Richard Fitzgibbons”. The site gave me the name of “Richard P. Fitzgibbons” and showed his initial licensure in 1970, most recently updated in 2010 with expiration of December 31, 2012. The site does not provide medical specialty or sub-specialty. It did show that there were no disciplinary actions associated with Dr. Fitzgibbons.
I checked the ABMS and ABPN websites for Fitzgibbons. Depending on the website’s design, I checked for general, “addiction”, and “forensic” psychiatry certification(s). The doctor’s name did not appear in any search.
AN IMPORTANT CAVEAT: Last I recall, a board-certified physician can decide not to have his or her name listed on the ABMS verification website. The ABMS itself states that this site is not to be considered an authoritative source for specialty/sub-specialty certificate verification. Therefore, it could very well be the case that Fitzgibbons was (and remains?) board-certified in psychiatry.
Unless things have changed in the meantime, no state — so far as I recall — requires that a physician be board-certified to practice a medical specialty and/or sub-specialty. A newly minted MD, for instance, could decide to begin practicing surgery or whatever — and identify himself as such! By the same token, a physician who has never been board-certified (or perhaps has decided not to seek recertification) could be very well qualified to practice a specialty and/or sub-specialty. Certification should be seen as a “plus”, indicating that a physician has met professional standards set by experts in a particular field of medicine. Every board-certified physician is issued a certificate (suitable for framing) by an examining board.
Is or was Dr. Fitzgibbons board-certified in psychiatry? Impossible to tell without checking the ABMS COMPENDIUM (I haven’t checked to see if it’s still in paper format or on electronic database). Every hospital and medical library should have such information, but I’m not in a position to check.
Joseph J. — Curious like you. A Richard (Rick) Fitzgibbons publishing notes on same-sex issues at Mercatornet is described as “the director of Comprehensive Counseling Services in West Conshohocken, PA. He has practiced psychiatry for 34 years with a specialty in the treatment of excessive anger. He co-authored Helping Clients Forgive: An Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope, 2000, for American Psychological Association Books.” Is that the same one?
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/no_more_threats_please_lets_try_logic
He has a websites at ChildHealing.com and at MaritalHealing.com
The latter gives his staff bio:
http://www.maritalhealing.com/practice/staffprofiles.php
Tim Townsend and Jesse Bogan wrote about Finn in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch today. From that:
————-
Mary Helm, 53, a registered nurse, stuck by the bishop.
“He is a good bishop,” she said. “We should try to pray for him and support him. There are a lot of people to keep track of. You can’t expect absolute perfection in everybody, except for God.”
—————–
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/hope-for-reform-follows-verdict/article_ecfedfd9-70b4-5d99-b4c7-1e58fbe49d3b.html
Fitzgibbons has no apparent training in sexual disorders in that bio….and chosen by Finn.
“…he was sent first to a hospital, and then to Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist in Pennsylvania selected by Bishop Finn. The bishop testified that he was told by the psychiatrist that Father Ratigan was not a risk to children, and had been falsely accused by the school principal.”
“…had been falsely accused by the school principal.” The principal was relating the observations and analyses of school staff and parents.
I don’t believe the false accusation bit for a moment. That would not be the kind of judgment that a psychiatrist of professional integrity (assuming Fitzgibbons is) would put in an assessment of a patient. That was Bishops Finn’s interpretation.
I revise my assumption about Dr. Fitzgibbons and his professional expertise.
Dr. Fitzgibbons, a consultant to the Congregation for Clergy at the Vatican, has produced quite a few web videos.
In one he claims that the most common cause of excessive anger in children, teenagers, and young adults arises from SELFISHNESS in children. He specifically said that such anger does not come from hurts in the family or with peer interactions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_eYneCmHiU
What if one of the girls, who was abused by Ratigan, exhibits angry acting out and I am sure that will happen with some. (By the way, he has three daughters.) Would he have the audacity to treat them as though they were SELFISH?
Addendum:
i think now that Dr. Fitzgibbons probably did say that Ratigan was falsely accused by the school principal.
Interesting:
A staff member at the Institute of Marital Healing is Peter C. Kleponis, who has completed his doctorate in psychology at Capella University.
On the website it is said that he “has participated in the development of a new DVD series with Catholic Familyland on the addiction that is most damaging to marriages and families today – internet pornography. This series is based on Bishop Robert Finn’s pastoral letter on pornography, Blessed Are The Pure In Heart: A Pastoral Letter on the Dignity of the Human Person and the Dangers of Pornography, February 21, 2007, http://www.diocese-kcsj.org/_docs/Pastoral-02-07.pdf.
More recently, Peter was featured in a documentary on the dangers of pornography, “What’s that purple building Daddy?” that was produced by the King’s Men. In June 2010 he gave two conferences on understanding and healing pornography conflicts to all the priests of the Archdiocese of New York.”
http://www.maritalhealing.com/practice/staff/staffprofiles.php#kleponis
I know. I’m on a roll, but I am really angry -not angry enough to seek counseling. A few glasses of wine with a perso I love will probably mellow me out.
“…the powers that be are waiting to see how the public and diocese….”
David,
The law doesn’t prohibit Bishop Finn from staying in office, but one would think shame would restrain him from wanting to stay. That is the tragedy — that he has no shame to resign on his own. He is trying to be more forgiving of himself — as a bishop, an overseer of thousands of people — than he can be. He thinks he has his “reputation” in his episcopal “power,” based on that. It is very sad, his self-delusion. I will pray for him. God help him.
THANK YOU, Helen for your research on Fitzgibbons. I watched his video on selfishness as the source of anger in children, not trauma or hurts.
I figuratively join you in a glass of wine to mellow out. Actually, a complaint to a board of psychiatry may be more appropriate. Truly, I shudder.
“I think we are seeing a significant misadventure, a last gasp of the preconciliar Church.”
I don’t understand this comment, at least not if it is meant to refer to the Bp. Finn case. He was ordained a priest 14 years after the Council ended and a bishop 39 years after. He is decidedly a post-conciliar ordained ministry. But perhaps the thought is that only a bishop with a “preconciliar Church” mentality could have been so neglectful of his duty. If so, I’d love to know the reason or evidence for entertaining that idea. One of the things that Vatican II did was to significantly increase the power of bishops, especially vis-a-vis their priests, rendering them, if anything, less accountable.
Or perhaps it is that all things bad, even fifty years later, must be ascribed to the “preconciliar Church,” while, of course, the “postconciliar Church” is without spot or wrinkle. It reminds me of the Commonweal editorial, 20 years after the Council, that claimed that the post-conciliar Church was holier than the pre-conciliar. I wondered how they knew.
What are such terms thought to illuminate?
I didn’t notice any mention of the fact that bishop Finn is from St. Louis where he was close to Raymond Burke. If I’m not mistaken His Eminence has been outspoken on the topic of how bishops should try to save the priesthood of errant priests. Judging by the words of his apology, a resignation is very unlikely. Maybe the cardinal could find him a post at the Vatican?
For the record:
Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke was the principal consecrator at Bishop Finn’s ordination to the episcopacy.
No way will he resign, though he should.
JAK –
As I interpret the phrase, it refers to Pope John and Pope Paul VI being anxious anxious to open up the Church some, they were followed by JP II who was quite regressive, and his appointments were of bishops who have been generally more conservative than those appointed by John and Paul and the leaders of the changes of VII. You might not agree with this, but it is the way many of us see the history of the Church since JP II. The promise of the exercise of collegiality, for instance, has not been fulfilled.
“One of the things that Vatican II did was to significantly increase the power of bishops, especially vis-a-vis their priests, rendering them, if anything, less accountable.”
If this is true, we’ve seen a trickle-up effect. It seems to me that the curia has eviscerated the episcopacy, ensuring that throwbacks get ordained/promoted.
Bishop Finn fits the model of the preconciliar bishop: a chancery bureaucrat, limited experience (none actually) as a pastor, and part of a careerist mentality, rather than a shepherd’s.
“Or perhaps it is that all things bad, even fifty years later, must be ascribed to the “preconciliar Church,” while, of course, the “postconciliar Church” is without spot or wrinkle.”
I wouldn’t say that. But the shift in devaluing the experience of pastoring a parish is undeniable. It’s certainly not a 100% bad, 1950, 100% good 1975 experience. The trend should be alarming.
“It reminds me of the Commonweal editorial, 20 years after the Council, that claimed that the post-conciliar Church was holier than the pre-conciliar. I wondered how they knew.”
Well, I wouldn’t write that editorial. In fact here and on my own site I’ve argued against the hermeneutic of exceptionalism, the notion that any single generation can be pegged as holier or more sinful than another.
“Bishop Finn fits the model of the preconciliar bishop: a chancery bureaucrat, limited experience (none actually) as a pastor, and part of a careerist mentality, rather than a shepherd’s.”
Isn’t this an illustration of petitio principii, of begging the question? Was this “model” any more common in the pre-conciliar Church than it is in the post-conciliar Church? I don’t think that careerism has been any less common since 1965 than before.
“But the shift in devaluing the experience of pastoring a parish is undeniable.” Well, it certainly is questionable. Is there really a “trend”? I’m asking. I don’t know.
Fitzgibbon is of interest since Finn’s “appeal to authority” in justifying his actions depends essentially on him. Another bio on Fitzgibbons comes from Opus Bono Sacerdoti with a bit more on his experience and publications. Fitzgibbons is one of six living Advisors of the organization.
http://www.opusbono.org/advisors.html
On 11/17/11, the KC Star reported the advisory role of Richard Fitzgibbons, who had examined Ratigan, with Opus Bono Sacerdotii, an organization providing services to accused and imprisoned priests, including financial, legal, and emotional support. Some concerns reportedly were raised about a conflict of interest in Fitzgibbons providing an evaluation in view of his direct connection to the priest advocacy organization. Finn nevertheless proceeded with the arrangement. KC Star requests to Fitzgibbons, Opus Bono Sacerdoti, and the diocese for relevant comment in Nov. were declined.
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/16/3270664/psychiatrist-who-examined-ratigan.html#ixzz1e4bo4sDX
Opus Bono Sacerdotii offers Recovery Tools among which is the Institute for Marital Healing, linked to above (3:10pm) for the earlier bio and by Helen (7:39pm). Fitzgibbons is its director. His reported response to Finn on Ratigan is illuminated by a look at the thrust and content of this site.
It has a section called “Resources for Clergy”, notwithstanding the name of the site. This deals with abuse accusations and how priests can fight them and the accusers; 16 types of conflict to look for in accusers are identified. Major emphasis is on false accusations of abuse and of “boundary issues”. True accusations are expected to be dealt with by criminal justice and mental health professionals.
Pornography use is considered; 17 types of emotional and character conflicts which influence it are named along with many effects and a 6-point recovery plan. Homosexuality and its incompatibility with the priestly vocation are mentioned briefly. Many references, links, DVDs, and recommended actions are offered to help priests in these areas.
http://www.maritalhealing.com/clergy.php
In 2011, Fitzgibbon presented to a workshop of bishops a detailed strong statement on homosexuality, countering what he sees as widespread misinformation from many organizations and authors. It would be interesting to find out the extent to which he is a background authority for the ongoing uproar over samesex marriage and other homosexuality-related issues on which bishops speak.
http://www.hprweb.com/2012/05/same-sex-attractions-in-youth-and-their-right-to-informed-consent/
Thank you all for your work digging out information on Fitzgibbons. Impressive. This is starting to look serious. More Opus Dei malfeasance? Is the Opus Dei currently the main channel through which evil gets organized to thrive in the church in a systematic manner? Is the Opus Dei the “cancer in the church” that the pope once mentioned? How long will we continue to discover further consequences of Maciel’s work? If there is a being called Satan, he must be delighted in the Opus Dei.
Jack Barry:
Thank you for the link to the paper given by Fitzgibbons on sex attractions in youth.
Yesterday, I found this webinar in which Dr. Fitzgibbons specifically denies a genetic factor in homosexuality.
http://www.maritalhealing.com/youthandssawebinar.php
Claire –
“St.” Josemaria Escriva was the founder of Opus Dei. Maciel founded the Legionaries. Both were unsavory characters, with Maciel being far worse, so far as I can see. The Legionaries are still in process of being reformed after the discoveries about Maciel were made public. Esciva, on the other hand, was canonized, apparently at the insistence of JP II and in spite of evidence that he was no saint. Will the Vatican ever get wise about OD?
You’re right Ann.
Claire, I could find no reference to Opus Dei on the Opus Bono website. Is there any relation between the two organizations? Don’t know.
Jack, thanks for researching more information about Dr. Fitzgibbons. As we know, both the diocesan vicar general and chancellor had suggested to Finn that he obtain a second opinion on Ratigan, but the bishop did not do so. I don’t think it’s a stretch to conclude — based on your links — that the good bishop was “forum shopping” to protect the diocese (and Finn). So much for the bishop’s ultimate concern for the physical, emotional, and spiritual welfare of children entrusted to his pastoral care by the Vatican.
In perusing Fitzgibbons’ biography at the Opus Bono website, I noticed that he was a diplomat of the American Board of Family Practice from 1974 to 1981. The organization’s name was changed to American Board of Family Medicine in 2005 according to the ABFM website. The organization has been a member board of the ABMS since 1969.
Finally, I should note that a “Richard P. Fitzgibbons” appears on the list of 31 current members of the “Scientific Advisory Committee” of NARTH, the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuals” — http://narth.com/menus/advisors.html
If I may opine, perhaps His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI can have His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke affix a “Gold Pontifical Star” on the forehead of Bishop Finn for at least trying to “protect Holy Mother Church from scandal”.
As for Dr. Fitzgibbons’ affiliations, let each reader arrive at his or her own conclusion.
I’ve reached mine.
Yes Joseph. I got confused. I was upset from reading some of the links provided by Jack.
“Was this “model” any more common in the pre-conciliar Church than it is in the post-conciliar Church?”
Good question. Admittedly, I have only my own subjective experience of bishops over the past twenty years. Bishop Sheen was my ordinary when I began preparations to become Catholic as a lad way back in ’69. I later learned working in the Sheen archives as a grad student that he strongly lobbied for a “respected pastor” to be named his successor. Promoting from within the presbyterate of a diocese strikes me as a generally more favorable approach than getting a cushy assignment as a cardinal’s protege.
One highly-placed church source told me the Congregation of Bishops has been having a heck of a time getting their first choices to say “yes.” He suggests that more priests decline the episcopacy these days, maybe by a ratio of 3 to 1.
“But the shift in devaluing the experience of pastoring a parish is undeniable.” Well, it certainly is questionable. Is there really a “trend”? I’m asking. I don’t know.
Any volunteers to conduct a study? Frankly, I’ve got too much to do, and the subject matter is discouraging to the exteme. I’m focusing more on my assessment of “unfavorable” on my former bishop: he was never a pastor in a parish. His qualification for the episcopacy? Quality control at the archdiocesan organ and a “good son” to Archbishop Burke. Sheesh.
Very interesting information, Todd F.
Oh my, 3 to 1 ratio. I’d say it shows in many cases.
No study results, but from general impressions, haven’t many appointees been chancery folk, especially canon lawyers, working their way up the ladder? Or former seminary rectors?
Finding a conservative bishop as a mentor must help.
Yes, I’ve also heard that many priests are turning down the opportunity of becoming a bishop. Maybe they’re the sort of men we’d like to have as bishops–men who don’t want it! Gregory the Great advised against ordaining a man who wanted it. In the early centuries, it was not rare to have men ordained against their will.
I would agree that in the normal case a bishop should be chosen from among the clergy of that diocese, which was an injunction of Pope Celestine I, who also bequeathed to medieval canon law the adage: “Nullus invitis detur episcopus“–No bishop should be imposed upon an unwilling people.
Thank you, Fr. K:
“Nullus invitis detur episcopus“–No bishop should be imposed upon an unwilling people. I must remember that.
NCR editorial points out that Finn would be unable to work in his diocese as one convicted of aiding child abuse.
Finn disagrees. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “Jack Smith, a spokesman for the diocese, said Finn was continuing with a full schedule. The bishop led a confirmation class after he was sentenced Thursday. ‘He really is focusing on doing his job’ …”
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/hope-for-catholic-clergy-reform-follows-verdict/article_ecfedfd9-70b4-5d99-b4c7-1e58fbe49d3b.html
This church will be much better off when we stop using such arcane verbiage as: “Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke.” His middle name is not cardinal; his grand and glorious ecclesiastical appelation of self delusion is.
Finn led a confirmation class? What nerve! I wouldn’t want my child anywhere near him.
There are two states where failure to report is now a felony. I believe NH is one of them – a move that followed negotiation of a non-prosecution agreement between Diocese and AG.
An NCR editorial points out that Finn can do (teach a Confirmation class) what a lay applicant with a criminal record isn’t allowed to do. Finn makes a mockery of the Dallas Charter — and the other bishops so far are still silent about it.
Julie Hess, the school principal, wrote a VERY long letter to Finn with details of Ratigan’s behavior.
The psychiatrist told Finn Ms. Hess “may have orchestrated false accusations”.
The bishop claimed he believed that. So why didn’t he fire HER? Why was someone who would do such a thing allowed to be around children?
Another question: why was Ratigan sent to the convent in Independence? Why would the bishop have so little regard for the nuns?
Where is Ratigan now?
Julie Hess’s remarkable letter can be read at
http://ncrnews.org/documents/ratigan_letter.pdf
As I recall, she delivered it by hand. What would you have done if, standing in a position of diocesan authority and, presumably, responsibility, you were handed that letter by Principal Hess or told about it by your principal deputy in May 2010?
Hi, Jack.
Amazing that the psychiatrist and the bishop would attempt to sully the principal’s reputation by pretending to believe she “orchestrated the accusations” made by the parents and teachers.
No one mattered to them except Ratigan. The principal, the parents, the teachers, the nuns in Independence, and, of course, the CHILDREN (and babies) were of no importance.
(I wonder if Julie Hess’s lawyers have advised her to sue those who impugned her.)
Gerelyn,
I don’t think it has been established that Fitzgibbons is a psychiatrist at all, board certified or not. I recall only associations of family practice mentioned here.
Your comments about who really mattered to Finn are on target. The man is a disgrace to his office.
Hi, Carolyn,
With all the psychiatrists in Kansas City, why would Finn outsource the matter, anyway? (I presume he knew he’d get the answer he was looking for, regardless of the collateral damage.)
Can someone be sued for an apology? I mean, could the principal ask for a public apology, not money? I mean a real apology, an explicitly self-accusing one.
Somehow I think that the enabler-bishops are more concerned about their own reputations than money. Asking for public apologies might be the key to reforming them. (What is the term used in spiritual writings for a 180 degree turn in a person’s whole moral life? That’s what those bishops need. I don’t mean “conversion”.)
Carolyn Disco and Gerylyn:
According to the website for the Institute for Marital Healing, Fitzgibbons is a psychiatrist trained in psychiatry at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Child Guidance Center. I doubt that he would get away with the information on the world wide web if it were not true. (I have found from another source that he graduated from Temple Medical School.)
http://www.maritalhealing.com/practice/staff/staffprofiles.php
As to being board certified, he is not, according to this list of psychiatrists in Conshohocken.
http://www.vitals.com/specialists/psychiatrists/pennsylvania/conshohocken
As to why he was chosen, see:
http://www.priestlyhealing.com/AboutUs
“…Finn was continuing with a full schedule. The bishop led a confirmation class after he was sentenced Thursday. ‘He really is focusing on doing his job’ …”
Only in the Church of Rome.
And he will continue in office as long as enough sheople continue to toss their shekels into the weekly collection plate.
Is this not dysfunction?
“The bishop led a confirmation class…”
I’d pull my kid out of that class so fast his head would spin.
On my way out, I’d be telling the bishop that he is not trusted to be in the presence of my children, he has failed as a succesor to the Apostles and will not confirm my child.
I spent some time browsing through the Opus Bono website. The “FAQ” and the “Letters” sections contain some dismal stories from the other side of the sexual abuse scandal. For example:
5. Can a bishop simply “fire” one of his priests? It seems like all they want to do with those of us accused is make us go away. I’ve never even been able to talk to my bishop directly.
11. My canonical advocate and I are pulling our hair out because of our bishop’s “foot dragging” concerning my case. What can we do?
16. My diocese refuses to tell me of what I am accused of doing, refuses to provide a place to live, funds for an advocate and thus I am forced to move into a smaller and poorer living situation, and I am now taking on debts that I’m afraid I won’t be able to pay back in order just to live. Am I the only one experiencing this kind of treatment? Is my situation unique?
28. I am in agony! I was removed from ministry and like my brother priests, I was never told the accusation, never had an opportunity to speak to my bishop, a kangaroo court called a review board meeting accused me of things I never did, then I was told that my bishop wrote to Rome asking what to do and I was told to wait, “it would all work out fine”. The next thing I know, I’m being laicized! Now I have a canon lawyer (I was never told to get one) because I just “trusted” my bishop and was obedient and waited as his vicar of clergy told me that he wanted me to do.
36. Recently I requested a meeting with our new archbishop. I have an accusation against me that I have vehemently denied even in the press, however the archbishop responded to me that on advice of his canon lawyers, and in order to protect my rights, he should not meet with me or speak to me directly.
I assume that most of the people writing are probably guilty of some abuse, but that does not remove their right to due process! It seems that the callousness of those bishops towards their priests is the mirror image of their callousness towards the victims.
It seems that no one knows what to do with priests who are abusers, and no one knows how to resolve the conflict between the bishop “father” of his priests and the bishop responsible for investigating and making preliminary decisions about cases of sexual abuse. A bishop who wants to assume both roles is bound to get it wrong. The two roles are incompatible (why does Rome not see that? Why is the Vatican not discussing ways to resolve it? The inertia is deadly). Perhaps that’s why some priests refuse to become bishops.
The church might want to do what other employers do: When an accusation has been leveled against an employee, s/he is placed on *paid* administrative leave with continuation of full benefits until the matter is resolved one way or the other.
Due process is important.
Claire: using the word “why” when talking about the actions of the Vatican is a waste of time. The answer will always be: “because.”
web hosting…
This is very fascinating, You’re a very skilled blogger. I’ve joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your wonderful post. Also, I have shared your website in my social networks!…