Last Friday, Mollie did a superb job cataloging Bill Donohue’s shortcomings both as a crusader against anti-Catholicism (which obviously includes using the occasion of World AIDS Day to call people with HIV promiscuous) and as a surrogate for the conservative movement (giving Dick Morris a run for his money). Her conclusion was pointed: “Seriously, your excellencies and eminences: what will it take to make you rethink the wisdom of encouraging Bill Donohue to act as your public interpreter?” Wish I knew. Donohue has said lots of offensive things on a variety of topics, but his record on one subject in particular ought to give Catholic bishops considerable pause before lending him support: the sexual-abuse scandal.

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that the clergy of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph are divided on the question of whether their bishop should resign after being found guilty of one count of failing to report suspected child abuse. (A diocesan school principal warned the diocese about about Fr. Shawn Ratigan’s “inappropriate behavior with children” in May 2010; seven months later disturbing photos of little girls were found on Ratigan’s laptop; Finn didn’t restrict Ratigan until February 2011; and the police weren’t notified until May 2011.) The Times story is ugly: One priest goes on the record recommending the bishop step down. Another says his liberal colleagues are using Finn’s travails to push for a new, less conservative bishop. More than one hundred thousand people have signed an online petition urging Finn to step aside. The diocese has spent $1.4 million on legal fees. And the Times spoke with two priests who say that at a recent meeting of diocesan clergy Finn denied any wrongdoing. Yet he agreed to a set of stipulated facts that led a judge to render a guilty verdict. “I truly regret and am sorry for the hurt these events caused,” Finn told the judge at the time. And now he’s privately telling priests that he did nothing wrong?

Of course, none of that troubles Donohue. When it comes to defending Bishop Finn, Dr. D. is all in.

Read the rest of this entry »

It has never seemed the best hill to die on, but apparently Catholic League president Bill Donohue doesn’t know how to quit defending Bishop Robert Finn, who was found guilty this week of one misdemeanor count of failing to report suspected child abuse. (Be sure to read David Gibson’s post on the devastating Times story.) Back in November, Donohue declared that Finn was “an innocent man,” and flew all the way to Kansas City just to show how much he meant it. “In an ideal world,” Donohue claimed, “there would have been no charges whatsoever: there was no complainant and no violation of law.” Yes, and in an ideal world, when a U.S. bishop learns — nearly a decade after the 2002 wave of scandals broke — that one of his priests has crotch shots of kids on his computer, after having learned about a detailed letter of complaint about the guy from a Catholic school principal, the bishop would report the priest to the proper authorities, in accordance with civil and canon law. But that’s not the world Bishop Finn was living in. So now he stands convicted of failing to report suspected child abuse. In other words, Finn is not an innocent man. That’s why he issued a statement — both through his lawyer (.doc) and on his own behalf (.doc) — that contains apologetic-sounding words arranged in a way that avoids actually accepting responsibility for his failure to report the pornographer priest Ratigan. (Do yourself a favor and read Mark Silk on that and more here.)

You’d think Finn’s conviction would be enough to force Donohue back from the ledge, or at least show a measure of contrition. But no. He’s going all the way over. In his latest pronouncement, magisterially titled “Assessing Bishop Finn’s Guilt,” Donohue purports to bust some myths about the Finn case. Instead, he perpetrates some myth-making of his own. Let’s have a look. Read the rest of this entry »

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?

A judge has convicted Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph on one misdemeanor count of failing to report suspicion of child endangerment, making him the highest-ranking U.S. church official — and the first U.S. bishop — to be convicted in the sexual-abuse crisis. More from the Kansas City Star:

The charges stemmed from the church’s handling of the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, on whose laptop a diocesan vendor found hundreds of lewd photos of young girls in December 2010. Finn’s second-in-command at the diocese, Monsignor Robert Murphy, did not report the photographs to police for five months.

(…)

Finn and the diocese had been scheduled to start a jury trial in less than three weeks, but in a surprising move Wednesday, the matter was reset for trial in front of Torrence only.

Lawyers limited the case to a narrow range of facts, which were expressed in 69 paragraphs submitted to Torrence at the hearing. Torrence listened to about 25 minutes of summary from attorneys then took a half-hour break before finding Finn guilty based on those facts.

Those facts included an acknowledgement from Finn that he is a mandated child abuse reporter under Missouri law. The stipulation also contained a long recitation of the now-familiar facts of the case with a few new insights.

Read the rest here.

This morning, Thomas Reese, SJ, delivered a keynote address at the conference Clergy Abuse: Ten Years Later, sponsored by Santa Clara University. In his talk, Reese described the “unfinished work in responding to the sexual-abuse crisis.” Some highlights (you can read the whole talk at the bottom of this post):

First, I think the church—and by church I mean both the clergy and the people of God—needs to re-envision its attitude toward the survivors of sexual abuse. In Latin America, liberation theologians developed the concept of the preferential option for the poor. The American Catholic Church needs to embrace a preferential option for the survivors of sexual abuse.

[...]

Second, we need a better system for investigating accusations of sexual abuse. Obviously, all accusations must be reported to the police, but if the statute of limitations precludes prosecution, the police will not investigate. Or the prosecutor may judge there is insufficient evidence to prosecute. Under these circumstances, the church still has an obligation to investigate and determine whether a priest is guilty or innocent, whether he must be permanently removed from ministry or returned to ministry. The charter calls for an investigation of the allegations, but there is no standard operating procedure.

That became painfully clear in February 2011, when a Philadelphia grand jury found “substantial evidence” that thirty-seven priests — all in active ministry at the time — had abused. As the chair of the archdiocesan review board wrote in Commonweal:

The board had reviewed just ten cases involving the thirty-seven priests. None of the evidence we saw concerning the ten led us to conclude they had sexually abused minors. But until the grand-jury report came out, the board was under the impression that we were reviewing every abuse allegation received by the archdiocese. Instead, we had been advised only about allegations previously determined by archdiocesan officials to have involved the sexual abuse of a minor—a determination we had been under the impression was ours to make.

Read the rest of this entry »

This is not going to end well, even if Bishop Finn gets off. Coverage of a motion to dismiss, via Reuters:

In a preview to the upcoming trial of Bishop Robert Finn of the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, a lawyer for Finn asked Jackson County Circuit Judge John Torrence to dismiss the charge against him because he said there was another Diocese official who should have reported the priest to police.

“Bishop Finn had no statutory duty to report. We believe that this is clear,” said attorney J.R. Hobbs in arguing for Judge Torrence to dismiss the case against Finn.

Judge Torrence said he would take the matter under advisement and likely rule on the matter next week.

Bishop Finn is the highest-ranking Catholic leader to face criminal charges in the United States related to alleged abuse by a priest.

His case marks what some observers see as a key turning point in assigning accountability to an organization that has a long history of protecting priests who abuse children.

The priest in this case, Father Shawn Ratigan, has been charged with 13 counts of child pornography, some of which he kept on a church computer, and is jailed awaiting trial.

Bishop Finn and others in the Diocese became aware of the pictures in December 2010 but Finn never made an official report to authorities even though he did send Ratigan for psychological evaluation and ordered him to stay away from children.

Another Diocese official finally reported the situation to police in May 2011.

Finn’s lawyers argue that Monsignor Robert Murphy was the “designated reporters” so Bp. Finn did not have the technical legal responsibility. Perhaps that argument could work legally, and the bishop has hired a team of the best lawyers in the state. But will that fly in the court of public opinion?

PS: Mark Silk notes that in the similarly-themed Philadelphia trial of Msgr. William Lynn, the guy who oversaw priests for the archdiocese there and is accused of covering up abuse cases, defense lawyers are taking the opposite tack and saying Lynn should be excused because the archbishop was where the buck stopped:

Lawyers do what lawyers are paid to do, of course, and in these cases it is to get their clients off the criminal hook. But it’s hard to imagine a better way to drive Catholics further away from the church than by such denials and shifting of responsibility. Sure, over the past decade many apologies have been made and new rules and vetting procedures put in place. What’s clear from Philadelphia and Kansas City, however, is that when push comes to shove, the apologies can turn out to be lip service and the rules are honored in the breach.

Reuters has a thorough — and chilling — tick-tock on the case of Father Shawn Ratigan, the Kansas City-St. Joseph priest accused of possessing child pornography, and on what Bishop Robert Finn and other officials knew, and when they knew it.

Bishop Finn is facing charges that he did not report suspicions to the police, and his case does not seem strong — hundreds of lurid shots on Ratigan’s laptop computer, a history of complaints about Ratigan, Ratigan’s refusal to abide by restrictions placed on him, and his suicide attempt — and still no report to police:

As Ratigan regained his health, Bishop Finn, Monsignor Murphy and others in the diocese continued to agonize over what to do. More diocese officials and staffers were brought into the discussion, including consultations with legal counsel. Diocese officials ultimately concluded that the pictures did not appear to be pornographic because they did not depict sexual conduct, sexual contact, a sexual performance, or meet other criteria they believed would constitute child pornography, according to the Graves report and interviews with other sources.

Some inside the diocese believed that Murphy had fully explained the situation to police and had been told the pictures were not pornographic.

For his part, Bishop Finn maintains that he never viewed the photos himself but only had them described to him. In comments following Ratigan’s arrest, he called the pictures “inappropriate photographs or images.”

Following Ratigan’s recovery from his suicide attempt, the bishop sent him for psychiatric evaluation in Pennsylvania. After getting an opinion that Ratigan was not a pedophile from a Pennsylvania doctor who specializes in treating priests for mental health issues, Bishop Finn assigned Ratigan to live in a mission house with aging priests in Independence, Missouri, and warned him to stay away from his computer and not to use his camera.

As the time stretched on, diocese officials began to debate whether or not they should try to identify the children in the photos. They did not in the end make such an effort, and though diocese officials discussed calling the Missouri Department of Family Services, no such contact was made. The diocese also decided not to refer the matter to its own Independent Review Board based on the rationale that no victims had complained.

And in a move the diocese ultimately grew to regret, it continued to keep the matter a secret from the families attending its churches and schools.

Reading the whole piece, the criminal culpability seems pretty clear. A jury will have the final word, of course. But what if Finn is convicted? What happens? What if he is acquitted? The account shows he clearly violated the bishops’ own charter. What kind of accountability would there be or can there be?

NOTE: I initially wrote that Bp. Finn was facing trial early next year but I confused that with Msgr. Lynn’s trial in Philadelphia on charges of covering up for abusers. Josh McElwee at NCR reminds me that Finn’s pre-trial hearing is set for Dec. 15. Quite an Advent for KC Catholics.

Photo: Shutterstock

The Catholic League president’s latest defense of Bishop Finn outlandishly claims that “in an ideal world, there would have been no charges whatsoever: there was no complainant and no violation of law.” Of course, as Mark Silk points out, whether there is a complainant is irrelevant because Missouri law requires mandatory reporters such as Bishop Finn to inform civil authorities “immediately” when they 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.” A Jackson County grand jury believes Finn should have not have waited to inform the police about the lewd images of children that had been found in Fr. Shawn Ratigan’s possession. That’s why they’ve charged the bishop and the diocese with a class A misdemeanor of “failure of mandated reporter to report.”

Not that Donohue needs to wait for a jury to decide the case. No, he already knows Finn is “an innocent man.” You can tell he really means it because he flew to Missouri to stage a rally in support of Finn outside the offices of the Kansas City Star (Donohue is not the newspaper’s biggest fan). Apparently Donohue and the dozens gathered for the rally are not bothered by implications of Finn’s agreement with neighboring Clay County — a tacit admission that, nearly a decade after Dallas, the bishop still hadn’t been doing enough to keep kids safe. Read the rest of this entry »

The Kansas City Star reports:

Bishop Robert Finn on Tuesday avoided a possible criminal misdemeanor indictment in his handling of a priest facing child pornography charges by agreeing to enter into a diversion program with the Clay County prosecutor.

Authorities have pledged not to prosecute Finn, the leader of the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, if he lives up to the terms of a five-year diversion agreement.

(Of course, Finn and the diocese are still on the hook in Jackson County, where both parties have pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor charges of failing to report suspected child abuse.)

The terms are rather strict. Finn has agreed to meet with the Clay County prosecutor in person once a month for five years. At those meetings, Finn will report any allegations against clergy or church employees within Clay County, and explain how the diocese has responded to the accusations. In addition, Finn will visit all parishes in Clay County to inform parishioners about new programs he’s put in place to protect minors. At each of those meetings, the bishop will be joined by a new, yet-to-be-hired director of child and youth protection–and a diocesan ombudsman. A key part of the agreement commits Finn to using “all reasonable resources” to identify children in photos or videos uncovered during a sexual-abuse investigation–something the diocesan officials failed to do in the case that brought charges against Finn.

So now the child-protection policies of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph will be overseen to a significant degree by civil authorities. Perhaps Bishop Finn isn’t quite as concerned as his colleagues are about state threats to religious freedom.

Today Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph pleaded not guilty to a misdemeanor charge of failing to report suspected child abuse. “The fact that this is a misdemeanor ‘should not diminish the seriousness of the charge,’” according to the prosecutor. This is the first time a U.S. Catholic bishop has been indicted for such a crime. David Gibson wrote about this troubling case here and here.

Finn has acknowledged that he and other diocese officials knew for five months about hundreds of “disturbing” photos of children on a computer used by the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, but did not take the matter to police. The diocese also faces one count of failing to report suspected child abuse.

The diocese has issued a statement denying any criminal wrongdoing on the part of the bishop and the diocese. Given Finn’s knowledge of the images, it sounds like his lawyers have their work cut out for them.

Bishop Finn of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, who failed to take action against a priest with serious child pornography and boundary violation allegations lodged against him, had a letter read out in all parishes last Sunday. It begins:

These past few weeks all of us have endured the consequences of our human failure. The destructive sins of a few and the serious lapses in communication have caused us shame, anger, and confusion.

There are victims that are hurting, and others who have been left vulnerable by our processes. As you know, in the past two weeks, one priest was arrested and we removed another from ministry. They are the first sitting pastors to be removed in our Diocese in more than 20 years.

These are sobering realities, particularly for those who knew and trusted them. We are assessing what went wrong and applying our analysis as we move forward. This past week, I met with our Independent Review Board chairman and discussed the objectivity of our decision processes. I have also met with parishioners, our priests and Chancery staff, as well as the media. These meetings and discussions will continue.

As bishop, I take full responsibility for these failures and sincerely apologize to you for them. Clearly, we have to do more. Please know that we have — and will continue to cooperate with all local authorities regarding these matters.

The Kansas City Star has a roundup of the growing dissatisfaction with Finn among the faithful, though it’s highly unlikely he’ll step down. Most unsettling of all may be the decision by a man, Jim McConnell, training to be ordained a deacon in the diocese, not to pursue that vocation. McConnell wrote this to his parish, in a note also signed by his wife:

Dear Holy Family Parish:

After a great deal of soul searching, prayer and reflection, I have decided not to accept the call to Holy Orders that I have received.

Because of the recent disclosure of failures within the diocese to protect the people of St. Patrick Parish from harm, I cannot promise respect or obedience that is a part of the diaconate ordination. To me this breakdown in the system that was put in place to protect God’s children is inexcusable.

It is with great sadness that I must inform you that I will not be able to serve Holy Family Parish as your deacon. Holy Family has been my spiritual home for over 30 years, and I have received great love and support during many joy filled and sometimes very difficult events in my life. Cindy and I will continue to support Holy Family in what ever way we can and wish to express our appreciation and love to all of you.

Jim and Cindy McConnell

H/T to Catholic World News

The child pornography case involving Fr. Shawn Ratigan, 45, a priest in the Kansas City-St. Joseph diocese, under the direction of Bishop Robert W. Finn, was shocking enough in the first version, as reported by NCR– disturbing images of young children on Ratigan’s computer, a perfunctory, at best, examination of the material, a secret transfer of the priest to a convent, no subsequent action or notice when Ratigan attempted suicide last December, and no notification to the review board. And then only this month suspending the priest after extensive files of child pornography were discovered on his computer and he was arrested.

Now it turns out — thanks again to NCR (bravo, Joe Feuerherd!) — that a full year ago the principal of a Catholic elementary school wrote to Bishop Finn’s vicar general, the second-ranking diocesan official, with a clear warning about Ratigan’s suspicious behavior with children and detailed examples. Ratigan apparently received a talking to by a top chancery official, but nothing further was done and no one outside the chancery was alerted.

Finn’s spokesperson, Rebecca Summers, told NCR that the bishops 2002 charter says diocesan review boards should be convened only “when you have a specific allegation of abuse” by a priest or other person in diocesan ministry.

“We did not have that,” said Summers. “The charter did not address a situation such as this.”

Well, maybe common sense and concern for the welfare of children should have filled in those gaps in the charter. But this snowballing scandal, and under the watch of one of the more outspoken conservatives in the U.S. hierarchy, should certainly give the bishops impetus (if they didn’t have enough after the Philly grand jury revelations) to take some serious action when they meet next month in Seattle. That will require surrendering some degree of control. Can it be done, politically and theologically?

UPDATE: NCR reports that at a press conference today Bishop Finn said he was given a “brief verbal summary” of the principal’s letter by Father Murphy, the vicar general, a year ago and had only read it in its entirety for the “first time” last night. So he was aware of Ratigan’s problem months before he was told about the questionable photos of children on Ratigan’s computer. Father Murphy certainly doesn’t come off well, but the bishop knew about Ratigan’s history and there must have been a personnel file with this info when Finn made his first discreet inquiry to a police officer.

(After writing this I realized Dave Gibson already posted on the statement. But, because my post does something a bit different from his, I’m leaving it up.)

Via John Allen: Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas and Bishop Joseph Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph have released a “Joint Statement on Principles of Catholic Social Teaching and Health Care Reform.” Allen’s nut grafs:

Opening a new front in official Catholic reaction to health care reform, the two bishops of Kansas City have issued a joint pastoral statement  warning not only against an expansion of abortion or mandatory end-of-life counseling, but also the dangers of “excessive centralization” and “government socialization” of medicine.

Experts say that the critique goes beyond pronouncements offered by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or by other American prelates, which typically have called for preserving “pluralism” in health care but otherwise seem neutral, or even favorably inclined, to new government initiatives.

The bishops identify several problems with the U.S. health-care system, including the 47 million uninsured, the rising costs of health care, the state of the Medicare trust fund, and the fact that people with preexisting conditions are often denied insurance coverage.

But, the bishops write, the American way of health care also has strengths. To wit: “Most Americans like the medical care services available to them. Our country, in some ways, is the envy of people from countries with socialized systems of medical care.” And don’t forget, “85 percent of citizens in the U.S. do have insurance.” Sure, 47 million may be uninsured, but, the bishops write, a 2007 Kaiser Commission study showed that 11 million of them were “eligible to receive care through SCHIP or Medicaid, but were not enrolled.” And, hey, competition works; the market produces innovation! “Doctors and other scientists immigrate to our country because of the better compensation given to those who provide quality medical care or produce successful research.” And the final strength of the U.S. system listed by the bishops: Medicare and Medicaid work–despite their limitations.

Read the rest of this entry »