Finn verdict protects the powerful, forgets the children
Yael T. AbouhalkahThe conviction of the highest ranking Catholic official in the Kansas City area Thursday is not a cause for any rejoicing. At all.
Bishop Robert Finn got off with a slap on the wrist - even after being found guilty of one count of failing to report suspicions of child abuse.
And the children he was expected - no, demanded - to protect can only watch the bishop walk away with two years of probation.
The legal system tried but ultimately failed to send the message that it would work aggressively to protect children from this outrage.
Jackson County Circuit Court Judge John Torrence actually suspended the probation sentence.
From The Star: “If Finn completes the unsupervised probation without any new incidents happening, his criminal record will be expunged.”
Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker defended the weak sentence after the judge’s verdict, saying children were protected from being dragged through the trial.
Finn was the person who was supposed to lead by example - to make sure ALL adults in the diocese do their best to protect the children in their care.
Finn failed to do that.
He was found guilty of that violation.
He suffered some bad publicity.
But he still holds his job and his power.
The legal system today protected the powerful, but forgot the suffering of the children.
Finn could and should have resigned months ago, to have allowed this entire diocese to move forward, to remove the stench of this long-running episode.
He failed to do that and - with today’s verdict - appears ready to stay in power for more years to come.
That means controversy over his leadership will remain, embroiling Catholics in their own kind of limbo.
Mark Hastert
8 months, 2 weeks agoDon’t worry, he’ll get “promoted” and be gone after face saving period. He’ll be replaced by a nice fence mender for at least a while.
Maureen Paul Turlish
8 months, 2 weeks agoBishop Robert Finn is convicted on one count, is sentenced to 2 years which is immediately suspended and told that he will have a criminal record FOR ALL OF 2 YEARS.
What a travesty of justice. Finn, who should be removed as bishop there in Kansas City, will not be sanctioned in any way by the pope.
Jackson County Circuit Court Judge John Torrence’s decision is an OUTRAGE!
What I cannot understand is why Robert Finn was not charged on federal statutes?
Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind why the hierarchy of the RCC has lost all credibility? All Moral authority?
So much for the Sanctity of Life as far as raped, sodomized and exploited children are concerned.
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish Advocate for Victim/Survivors & Legislative Reform New Castle, Delaware maturlishmdsnd@yahoo.com
Kay Goodnow
8 months, 2 weeks agoIt’s not what I had expected, let alone wanted, but we do at least have ONE count of guilty. I do not understand how so many people could not care about the rape of children. Apparently this judge didn’t care, both sides of the legal arguments didn’t care, just “be done with it.” Very sad. I am so sorry for those little girls and their parents. A travesty of justice that I did not expect. I do believe that money talks, however. Great editorial, Yael!
Neil Allen
8 months, 2 weeks agoCatholics contiue to protect pedophiles and pedophile protectors like Jesus would protect children.
Judy Block-Jones
8 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 guilty verdict. This is a start of 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)
Ken Whisler
Parkville
8 months, 2 weeks agoIrrefutable fact that is being ignored by everyone, the judge and the prosecutor included:
There were AT LEAST a half dozen people on the parish level that qualified as “mandated reporters” that suspected criminal behavior by Ratigan before the bishop had heard one word of it. The parish level is where the problem started, the parish level is where the problem needs to be fixed.
Judy, TWO of those people that qualified as “mandated reporters” were police officers.
Your emotional screed reeks of spite, not healing and resolution.
Bob Schwiderski
8 months, 2 weeks agoTwo woman meet on a cruise ship, a Protestant from Minneapolis the other a Catholic from Kansas City………… the Protestant hollors “Hello, where are you from?’……….the other whispers back, Kansas City……….The moral of the story: if the Catholic had any pride she would not have whispered, her faith leader is a convicted criminal.
Ken Whisler
Parkville
8 months, 2 weeks agoUh…..Bob, how about asking Gary Schoener, a Minneapolis psychotherapist who has handled more than 2,000 cases of clergy sexual abuse over the past 10 years, ask him how many of the perps of his patients were Catholics, and how many were protestants? Go ahead, ask him!
Mark Robertson
8 months, 2 weeks agoActually, Bishop Finn took immediate action in the Ratigan case. He had him professionaly evaluated and then sent him to a location away from parish ministry and put restrictions on him. Many of us still think he handled situation properly despite his many apologies. To see what actually happened in the case, go the The Catholic League site. The Diocese is in the best shape that it has ever been in because of the great leadership of Bishop Finn. The actual reason the Star despises Bishop Finn is because he is an orthodox bishop. He strictly follows the Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church. Much of the media, including the Star, have a disdain for the true Catholic Church. But as long as there are go along to get along bishops, the media often puts up with the Catholic Church. But when a strong Catholic bishop comes along, such as Bishop Finn, they just can’t have that. Many prayers were answered with yesterday’s ruling. It can be hoped and prayed for that Bishop Finn will be our bishop for many more years. With Bishop Finn’s great leadership, our diocese has become such a strong Catholic dioocese. It will only get better. Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
Steven Gromowsky
8 months, 2 weeks agoActually, Finn sat on it for 5 months, which was against the law. And against moral law. Period. You can rationalize it all you want. The whole meme of the liberal media picking on the oh so innocent Catholic Church to excuse Finn and his pedophiliac henchmen is disgraceful. The apologists in the Catholic Church who continue to stand with Finn are EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PARTICIPATION IN COVERUP OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN. Oh, and my children go to Catholic school, by the way, and have been exposed in one way or another to both Ratigan and Tierney, another of Finn’s pedophiles.
Phil Cardarella
8 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.
Steven Gromowsky
8 months, 2 weeks agoSo your point is that the church hierarchy should have diplomatic immunity? If Ratigan had been a serial killer, and Finn had sent him to psychological counseling and said, “Hey, you should really stop doing that.” - Finn should not be held legally responsible in the legal system of the United States of America? Really? Because if you agree that he is legally liable for not stopping an active serial killer, than what you are really saying is that serial pedophilia is not a serious crime. He made it possible for Ratigan to continue walking the streets within full contact of our children. Disgraceful. He should be in prison.
Phil Cardarella
8 months, 2 weeks agoHold on to your socks, son.
First off, failure to report is a misdemeanor. Prison is not an option for anyone. Nor should it be. And, lest we lose track, there is no evidence that Rat Man engaged in actual pedophilia that I am aware of. What he did is bad enough. Let’s keep our crimes straight.
Knowledge of history and an appreciation of the sensitive nature of criminally punishing a Catholic bishop under the secular law for omissions in aspects of his diocesian oversight is NOT a defense of any form of child abuse. But, it is simply not enough to scream “child victim” and suspend all other thought on the subject, either.
And, by the way, there are circumstances under which a priest or minister is actually PROHIBITED from advising the authorities about an admission of criminal behavior. This was not one of them. But that is what I mean when I say that it is not enough to just shout “victim”.
Steven Gromowsky
8 months, 2 weeks agoAll due respect, Phil, but I’m not your son. I’m a father that has a duty to protect his children, and Finn has made decisions that put my children in jeopardy. I can only imagine the pain of the fathers and mothers who’s children were directly abused by this Ratigan monster. Finn knew. Finn sat on it for 5 months, until it blew up in his face. Then he covered his ass, and threw everyone that works for him under the bus to save his own pathetic skin. Just like he did when he spent thousands of dollars of church money to buy his way out of any serious legal punishment. When I say he should be in prison, it is not as an attorney discussing the intricacies of the legal code. It is as a man with at least a shred of morals, unlike this “bishop”.
Ken Whisler
Parkville
8 months, 2 weeks agoSteven, you have it backwards. As I see it, the bishop could have easily saved himself from this and thrown a whole host of others under the bus. He did not. Meditate on that.
Steven Gromowsky
8 months, 2 weeks agoSo how many thousands of OUR dollars did he spend on lawyers to not save himself, Ken? You know, the ones who argued that he wasn’t a mandated reporter and that it was his staff, not him, that covered up Ratigan? The ones that argued that he didn’t actually personally see the pictures on Ratigan’s computer, so he couldn’t be held responsible? How is it that he hasn’t resigned, even though he’s pled guilty in one jurisdiction and been convicted in another? The man covered up the sexual abuse of our children, and enabled a predator to continue to walk the streets. THAT IS A FACT, NOT AN OPINION. He is now officially a convict. And yet he still has his job as the leader of our schools. Sounds like he did a pretty bang up job of not saving himself. But from your previous comments, I can tell your not a “Buck Stops Here” kind of guy. Just like Finn.
Steven Gromowsky
8 months, 2 weeks agohttp://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2012/09/06/17/52/qEbWw.So.81.pdf
Read this entire stipulation of testimony, and tell me it doesn’t make you sick to your stomach. Like when Murphy finally did report Ratigan:
Murphy stated that Finn was out of town when he reported to the police and was “upset” upon learning of his actions. “It seemed he was angry.” When asked if he was concerned that he might be angering his boss Murphy stated, “Yes. I told my sister, I think I made a decision that will not make the Bishop happy.”
Creech testified that Finn “was a little frustrated that he had called at this point. And I [Creech] asked why, and he [Finn] said because the priest wouldn’t get the help he needs if he were in prison.
When asked why Ratigan was not removed earlier, Finn replied that he “wanted to save Fr. Ratigan’s priesthood”
Finn must resign.
Pat Smith
8 months, 2 weeks agoWake up, Citizens! This matter of Finn and/or his diocese is not merely a matter of failure of some poor and humble (Finn spent inordinate amounts remodeling a space as large as all of Catholic Charities for his luxurious personal dwelling in the Catholic Center) apostolic successor who failed to report suspected child abuse because of compassion for one of his own (very politically aligned-with himself) presbyters. Nor is it legal hair-splitting as to the constitutionality of the mandatory reporting requirements as Finn’s expensive Lathrop and Gage attorneys (unsuccessfully) tried to argue.
Here is only some of what’s ultimately missing in nearly every “journalism” article I’ve seen on this topic so far (the proverbial elephant in the room - in this case it’s a herd):
Who were the sentient, educated, upright women and men of formed consciences and adult maturity - many of them baptized in Christ as a new creation and some of them with children of their own - that sold their morality and ethics for thirty pieces of silver (aka a job and benefits)?
Who were the morally erect legal wizards advising Finn AND cohorts - in advance of the crash - how to manage the non-disclosure to civil authorities?
Who were the self-serving shape-shifters that were spinning their stories privately to the investigators and their images publicly to the Faithful?
Why did the federal investigation only go as far as the extremely obvious low hanging - no, fallen on the ground fruit, Ratigan?
Why was almost everybody, EVERYBODY around Finn obsessed with protecting the brand (and their sorry, sell-out hides) OVER doing the right thing for the kids that pictorial evidence admitted in the courtroom shows were already objectified by Ratigan’s actions? (Look up Misprision of a felony Title 18 U.S.C.§ 4. “Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”)
This DOES NOT model Jesus Christ! The lack of integrity and forthrightness of the major players in Finn’s cabinet is profoundly astonishing.
The law enforcement and prosecutorial pursuit of this does not even rise to the level of paultry. Why? Because of the enormous financial, personnel, legal and influential public relations resources of that diocese and its well heeled, elite movers and shakers.
Huge amounts of public resources were availed for these investigations and prosecutions in Clay and Jackson counties and at the federal level. Amply compensated and perked city, county, state and federal civil servants with forensic technology out the wazzoo and support staff were involved in investigating and prosecuting this matter. In the end, they work for YOU, the citizen. Worthwhile?
Ken Whisler
Parkville
8 months, 2 weeks agoActually Steven, that was EXACTLY my point: the buck DOES stop with the bishop.
As I have repeatedly mentioned, at least six people qualified as mandated reporters under Mo. law before the bishop had heard even one word about it! For this past year, I have wondered why the bishop’s attorneys were not hammering on that point, and now I understand.
I have many points to make, and many of your own inaccuracies to point out, but it is clear we are not going to agree, so I will leave you with these two thoughts:
1) the last I heard, Fr. Tierney adamantly maintains his innocence and stands ready to mount a vigorous defense. Fr. Tierney has not yet had his opportunity to face his accusers and give his own account. Are you willing to give Fr. Tierney due process and presume his innocence until otherwise is proven?
2) as a cradle Catholic, you should know that the ONLY human that can remove a sitting bishop is the pope. My opinion means squat to the pope as to if the bishop stays, your opinion means squat to the bishop as to if the bishop goes. Popular opinion and mob mentality will not play into the pontiff’s decision on the matter; he will do what is best for the diocese EVEN IF THE MEMBERS OF THE DIOCESE DO NOT AGREE WITH HIS DECISION. The Russians have a saying: “You get the priest you deserve.” That said, if the pope decides to remove Bishop Finn, I accept the pope’s decision and readily acknowledge his judgement and discernment as superior to my own. Can you honestly say the same if the pope decides that the bishop is to stay the course?
Ken Whisler
Parkville
8 months, 2 weeks agoHey KC STAR site admins: how about a “preview” function or a time limit to make corrections?
correction to the second sentence in my second point: your opinion means squat to the POPE as to if the bishop goes.