Bishop Finn escapes tough punishment; Catholic Church left hurting
The criminal conviction of Bishop Robert Finn sends a clear message to the Catholic Church that those responsible for the safety of children will be held accountable, no matter how high their post in the hierarchy. Yet at the same time, the sentence on one count of failing to report suspicion of child abuse, is disconcertingly light: Two years of unsupervised probation.
Nevertheless, Finn has the unwanted distinction of becoming the highest-ranking U.S. Catholic official to be convicted in the long-running abuse scandals. Finn said he was “truly sorry for the hurt these events have caused.”
Yet perhaps “these events” could have been avoided had the diocese strictly followed the terms of a settlement it signed four years ago. In that case, the diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph put to rest a $10 million lawsuit involving several dozen people who said they had been sexually abused by priests.
The settlement included a series of pledges by the diocese to institute tougher policies covering priests and those in contact with children. Priests and other adults were warned: Any contact with children beyond a handshake “should only occur under appropriate public circumstances.” Significantly, the diocese vowed to strictly follow state law covering the reporting of child abuse.
Yet last May came news that lewd images had been discovered on the computer of a priest, Father Shawn Ratigan, and the diocese had failed to notify authorities for five months. In addition, a year earlier, a school official at Ratigan’s former parish had sent a letter to the diocese expressing concern about Ratigan’s behavior — which included allowing children to sit on his lap or dig in his pocket for candy.
A key finding in the Finn case was the acknowledgment that he was indeed a mandated reporter under Missouri law, with the duty to report suspicion of abuse.
Finn was also charged with misdemeanor counts in Clay County, but agreed to enter a diversion program, thus avoiding prosecution. Under the terms of that deal, he must meet face-to-face with the prosecutor on a monthly basis, making known any allegations of child sex abuse within the county involving priests or church staff. The program’s term is five years.
The whole imbroglio has not only decimated the church’s credibility but its moral standing. Finn’s conviction is a strong reminder that he must not be allowed to remain in his post as bishop. In legal terms, Finn got off easy. But the church, and its hierarchy has been put on notice.
Kenny Landes
9 months, 2 weeks agoAs one of the members of the 2008 settlement, I can personally affirm that “these events” could have been avoided had the diocese followed the terms of a settlement it signed four years ago. It did not.
The legal settlement’s teeth were the non-financial agreements, specifically intended to avoid a day such as this. The criminal conviction of a sitting bishop did not have to happen. It should not have happened, and the bishop has nobody to blame but himself.
Hopefully this time the bishop’s apology will be more meaningful than the hand-signed letter of apology he sent me following the 2008 settlement.
Mark Crawford
9 months, 2 weeks agoFinn said he was “truly sorry for the hurt these events have caused.” THESE EVENTS were HIS ACTIONS but of course he would not bring himself to admit that. He still tries to “AVOID” personal responsibility. Doesn’t sound like much of an apology to me. And for that reason, he has gotten off way too easy.
We are still giving way too much deference to those who don’t deserve it! How very sad.
Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/bishop-finn-escapes-tough-punishment-catholic-church-left-hurting/#storylink=cpy
Mike Henggeler
9 months, 2 weeks agoIt’s impossible to know the depth of a person’s remorse, for that is on the inside. Outward manifestations are just that—superficial. He and other diocesan officials have to live with the reality that, had they reacted more assertively, more pain would have been avoided. Nothing suggests to me that they feel they got away with anything.
Let’s also remember that there was likely some legal coaching in play here. With several lawsuits waiting in the wings, he was probably instructed to choose his words carefully. In fact, his words were probably scripted. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with that given the way our legal system functions today.
Rather than look back, it’s more important that we all resolve to hold each other and our leaders accountable for better choices and better behavior so that we can finally put an end to “these events”.
Judy Block-Jones
9 months, 2 weeks agoFinally there is a bit of justice for clergy abuse victims, and finally there is a bit of hope for protecting kids from being sexually abused.
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 verdict. There is now 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)
Bob Schwiderski
9 months, 2 weeks agoWould the bishop of Kansas City / St. Joseph pass a Criminal Background Check? NO !!!!
Jim Robertson
9 months, 2 weeks agoGuilty? Guilty? Guilty but with no punishment means privileged.
Martin J Leahy
9 months, 2 weeks agoI, Robert Finn, am sorry that I failed to report Shawn Rattigan to the police. And I am sorry that I was angry with Vicar General Murphy when he did report Rattigan to the police.”
That is what he could have said.
Here is what he said in a post-trial statement issued tonight.
“Diocesan process and procedures in place at the time did not adequately identify the necessity to inform the Children’s Division of Shawn Rattigan’s behavior in a more timely manner. For this I am truly sorry…. I regret and am sorry for the hurt that these events have caused.”
He is sorry about the diocese’s inadequate policies and procedures, sorry that events caused hurt. Could he distance himself any farther from personal responsibility?
Sarah Kleman
9 months, 2 weeks agoBill Donohue chimed in on this story by saying that the conviction has nothing to do with child abuse or child pornography. Bill Donohue claims in television interviews that a person who is 13 years or older is not a child. Bill Donohue is paid a substantial six-figure income to tell these outright lies to Catholics.
I think we can say at this point that Bill Donohue is one of the foremost spokespersons for the Catholic Church in America. He is the President of The Catholic League. He speaks on television shows on behalf of American Catholics. The USCCB has not refuted his published or televised statements or asked for any corrections.
We must take Bill Donohue at his word that the Catholic Church believes that Finn’s conviction has nothing to do with child pornography. We must also ask the Catholic Church what does it believe that Finn was convicted of failing to report?
Phil Cardarella
9 months, 2 weeks agoFinn is a right-wing nut — one of the reasons that the late Cardinal Montini of Milan said the Church is 200 years behind the times.
BUT… the case itself raises some close legal issues. Judge Torrence — possiblyy correctly — ruled against the Bishop’s position. He found him guilty of a criminal offense. On the other hand, like it or not, criminal prosecution of a Catholic Bishop over his internal church decisions raises some serious church/state issues. Actually locking up a bishop for such an offense of omission — failure to report — would open up a serious can of worms.
I understand the desire of the victims of abuse to not only seek to blame the actual abusers but also the administrative decisions that enabled the abuse to sometimes continue with other victims. It is not all lawyer-driven “compensation psychosis” looking for a deep pocket for a lawsuit.
But the relationship between a Roman Catholic bishop and the priests of his diocese carries historical and religious baggage that is unlike the common employer/employee relationship. Two thousand years of history have seen the issue of secular control and punishment of priests as THE major religious freedom issue of Western Civilization — far more important than abortion policy or contraception purchases — and it has been part of a bishop’s responsibility to both counsel and protect his priests.
There are a number of countries today who seek to control bishops (and thus their priests) for political reasons. In every case where a Catholic bishop has been imprisoned by secular authorities, they have made a claim that it is for a crime against the state.
Now, Finn is no martyr to religious freedom. He is a barely workmanlike administrator whose only perceivable virtue is a weakness for historic preservation. And the decisions to prosecute him personally and to find him guilty may be valuable ones as a message of the importance we attach to child safety. But, the judge did the right thing by not locking him up.
It is the job of Benedict XVI (or of Finn himself) to rid us of this troublesome priest.