Cover-up continues

Much has been written by many on Bishop Robert Finn’s handling of child abuse cases. His allies say that Bishop Finn and the Catholic Church have been chronicled unjustly. Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas failed to acknowledge that he probably helped his longtime friend get promoted.

All parties should ask for the same simple solution — a jury trial. Archbishop Naumann in his Catholic newspaper advocated for a pre-trial settlement like the one in Clay County with no misdemeanor law broken and no jail time.

However, does anyone think the Catholic hierarchy will ever let all the facts become public knowledge? If Bishop Finn were a coach, teacher, policeman or parent, the case would probably go to trial.

It appears the Catholic Church may want to cover up the truth as it has done for generations in these abuse cases. In Nova Scotia, Canada, Bishop Raymond Lahey was forced to trial on child pornography charges. There was not any deal or settlement made, so he had to resign and was sentenced to 15 months in jail.

James Wasko
Olathe

Comments

[currahee]

I regret choosing words that left any room for misinterpretation. I have never hinted that Bishop Finn intended for children to be harmed. Mark jumped this conclusion because, I believe, he finds anyone who is critical of Finn to be part of a great conspiracy to bring down the Bishop. I care little about Finn. I am not a part of the Church, so it matters not to me if he is removed from his position. The legal system has taken the case close to the limit under current law. The real issue is Finn's defenders. If Finn's actions ocurred 20 years ago, most would admit mitakes were made and we will learn from those mistakes and move on. Authority figures in the Catholic Church, or any other institution, should have learned from the tragedies that occured within the Church and were perpetuated by the actions of Church leaders. Bishop Finn missed those lessons. More importantly, defenders like Curt, Mike and Mark refuse to accept those lessons. Every time they portray Bishop Finn as a victim they increase the odds of Ratigan happening again.

[currahee]

Pleased to see Mark is still around.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/16/3270426/northland-couple-says-ratigan.html

Does this not detail Ratigan's reassignment and subsequent attempts to take pictures of a young girl and communication with a 10 year old girl on Facebook?

" I restricted him from participating in or attending other events if there were children present."

The above is taken Direcly from an official statement from Bishop Finn.
http://www.newspressnow.com/localnews/27970340/detail.html

Why did Bishop Finn forbid contact with children if he did not believe there was risk with Ratigan?

"Doesn't even deserve a response."

Thanks for providing one anyway.

By the way, how is Trey working out?

[Mark Robertson]

"Bishop Finn reassigned Ratigan so he could attempt more crimes." And you expect us to take anything you say, seriously? Doesn't even deserve a response. You do though erase virtually any doubt as to where you are coming from. Thank you.

Mark Robertson
Independence

[currahee]

Sorry Curt. Bishop Finn reassigned Ratigan, so he could attempt more crimes.

[Curt80]

Still not sure what Bishop Finn did that was so upsetting? For the most part is that he did not call the police fast enough.

For many people even if he called 911 as soon as he heard of any allegations, it would not be fast enough. It would never be fast enough.

The hatred that that many of the people have toward the Catholic Church shows who you really are and that is sad.

I would suggest that many of you learn how to forgive and I mean unconditional forgiveness that is the hardest. Because, if you do not. The hate will consume you.

[currahee]

"Bishop Finn and the diocese did not act properly in reporting Fr. Ratigan's behavior to the appropriate authorities at the appropriate time."

This is exactly where Bishop Finn's defenders just don't get it. Previously, Mark has stated that Bishop Finn critics are wrong and Finn did indeed do something. Here, Mark states that Finn acted at the appropriate time. He could not be more wrong. Finn did act somewhat quickly, but not appropriately. By acting, Finn acknowledged Ratigan's behavior was wrong. Did Finn report the behavior to authorities? No and that is against the law.

"Bishop Finn's role in the Ratigan case is not analogous to a coach, teacher, policeman or parent."

Of course it is. If those positions of authority, under MO law, fail to report suspicions of abuse, they too can and should be prosecuted.

Mark, how is Trey working out?

[Mark Robertson]

Thanks Mike. Not surprising. They have to rely on subterfuge. Thank you.

Mark Robertson
Independence

[Mike]

drip, drip, drip
Neil Allen? hover over the name, it's patrick omalley dot com, aka snap

[Mark Robertson]

Good points Andrew. Neil obvioulsy has a hatred of the true Catholic Church, and thus Bishop Finn. Thank you.

Mark Robertson
Independence

[Mark Robertson]

And James, I just reread Archbishop Naumann's excellent column in the KCK's diocesan newspaper, the Leaven, defending Bishop Finn. Nowhere in the column does it call for a "pre-trial settlement." Again, what are you talking about?
And just who could a pre-trial settlement be made with. The last I heard, there are no specific victims, which is a main reason that Bishop Finn hasn't broken any law.
Not only should this case related to Bishop Finn not go to trial, just what is the case?
Please go to "Justice for Bishop Finn" and read(or listen to) lawyer Michael Quinlin's explanation of just what a fraud the indictment of Bishop Finn is. Quinlin is a St. Louis lawyer who has met Bishop Finn one time and is not getting paid and is not associated with the official defense of Bishop Finn. He just sees that a good man is being persecuted. Thank you.

Mark Robertson
Independence

[Mark Robertson]

"Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas failed to acknowledge that he probably helped his longtime friend get promoted." And to think, I don't seem to get my letters published anymore. Why is a line like this allowed in the Star? Making stuff up out of thin air. Even if it were true, what's the problem with recommending a qualified person to be a bishop? Archbishop Naumann has great respect from the Apolostolic Nuncio and others who recommend candidates for bishop to Pope Benedict XVI.
This letter is very weak. It makes no sense on many fronts.
Bishop Finn's role in the Ratigan case is not analogous to a coach, teacher, policeman or parent. But I guess it sounds good.
And there is nothing comparable with the way that Bishop Finn handled the Ratigan case(many of us think he handled it fine) with the Nova Scotia case. But again, I guess it contributes to the propaganda effort against Bishop Finn, at least with the ignorant. Thank you.

Mark Robertson
Independence

[Andrew]

Neil,

You obviously have a bone to pick with the Catholic Church. Based on your emotionally charged response to the post, nothing that anyone else says will change your mind, but I say this for the sake of everyone else reading.

Fr. Ratigan's behavior was absolutely deplorable. Bishop Finn and the diocese did not act properly in reporting Fr. Ratigan's behavior to the appropriate authorities at the appropriate time.

But the fact that somebody messes up and fails to report child pornography/abuse because he received poor advise from his legal council does not mean that he condones pedophilia. It certainly does not mean that he wants to place pedophiles around children.

If you know Finn personally and can tell everyone that you have experienced his allegedly devious intentions and behavior first-hand, please let me know. But if you're only basing your arguments on the media coverage and your own personal biases, please don't subject us to reading more hateful commentary on an already heartbreaking situation for Christians around the country.

[Neil Allen]

What Finn proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, but his own Graves report, is that he will go to any length to protect a pedophile, and for as long as he can get away with it.

He now has 5 lawyers, up from 4, which probably each cost $500 an hour, so he is certainly has the maximum number of lawyers telling him how to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me, God.

Lessons for parents:

- Finn is going to hide pedophiles, then allow them around your children
- he can't tell the truth about it without a lot of help from lawyers
- he's going to take a lot of your parishioner money to prevent himself from going to jail for hiding these pedophiles

You have to believe that he's hiding other pedophiles, too.

In other words, keep your kids away from Finn's church, priests and teachers.

Finn can pay a lot of someone else's money to keep himself out of jail, but he won't keep pedophiles away from your kids.