Above: Fr. Shawn Ratigan, with children.
I have learned, both from private correspondence and from Donohue's rants at the Catholic League, that the defenders of Bishop Finn have come up with a game plan and talking points.
Their case amounts to this:
THERE WAS NO SEXUAL ABUSE. Bishop Finn can not be guilty of failure to report sexual abuse. When Fr. Ratigan took pictures of the crotches of little girls at his parish and at least one set of photos of a naked two-year old, he was NOT ABUSING CHILDREN.
So, my fellow conservative Catholics, we can indeed spare ourselves embarrassment and our hero, Bishop Finn, from a tarnished reputation, but to do so we have to pay a very hefty price.
The price is our own kids.
Just be prepared, if you make this sacrifice, for what it entails. It entails the normilization of perverse behavior, and it also means that if one of your children is victimized in this way, you can say nothing, for your naked two-year old, fodder for the fantasies of a warped soul, may be used in this way without you being able to become as indignant as every fiber of common sense, every instict, and every ounce of the Law of Love indicates you should.
And if you've got an eight-year-old whose crotch appears dozens of times in jpg's on Fr. Ratigan's computer?
Tough.
We've got a reputation to save.
For more info, see The Full Story on Bishop Finn and The Spin Shall Set You Free
Comments
I had dinner with Bill Donohue when he came to the Credo Forum last year. In person he doesn't talk the way he does on Fox News. But the reason he's invited back again & again to Fox News is that he gives them the entertainment value they want -- bluster & all that. Reading between the lines I think he knows where the bread's buttered and rationalizes thinking something like "at least this gives me a platform to defend the Church from and keep Her from being pushed entirely out of the public square".
But if he's really participating in this lunacy he's not helping.
God says "tell the truth", but did it in a cleverly phrased 9th commandment.
This doesn't mean to say that you only have one naked picture of a 2 year old relative naked, when the real truth is
- you actually have a computer full of child porn
- none of the children are relatives
- one is the last in a series of a "staged strip tease" of a 2 year old, where the child is completely naked and exposing her genitals. (See page 90 of the Graves report for details).
It doesn't mean to lie if you are going to get in trouble, which the church ALWAYS does. It doesn't mean to lie if you are talking about your fellow priests.
It doesn't mean calling it "inappropriate touching" when it is child rape. It doesn't mean calling it child sex abuse when its anal rape of a child because someone might get offended or disgusted by the horror of the real explanation.
It means "be honest". If they were honest decades or centuries ago when this started, it could have been stopped. The Catholic church lied and was dishonest and distorted the truth.
At least 10,000 children (in the U.S. alone, according to the John Jay report of 2004) came forward and said that they were sexually abused by priests. If you were honest, you'd admit the number is MUCH higher.
If Jesus were here, he'd ACTIVELY SEARCH for the other and pay for therapy to heal them. The Catholic church loves their money and big buildings, and they will tell you that money is more important than those children. You believe them.
If you don't thoroughly denounce Bill Donahue for distorting the truth, you are being dishonest.
At least be honest with yourself before you have to be honest before God - you love the money, too, you love the big churches, and you don't really care about the children that were raped.
Otherwise, you'd do something about the lying of Bishop Finn and the whole Kansas City Catholic church and the International Catholic church.
Be honest - you follow bishops and priests, not God.
From what I've heard, it was more a matter of not having the full details at the time, which I don't myself cotton, but he got the police involved anyway. So ... this is not really the kind of story that fits the mold of "Sex Abuse Crisis and Coverup," which is what pretty much everyone assumes it is.
Not to mention the difference between child porn and "abusing the children entrusted to his care for 30 years, hopping around from parish to parish." It's grave betrayal, but it in only an attenuated way fits the narrative. Christian conscience cannot abide this, and I'm with you on that, but Ceasar minds pretty much because it's another stick to beat the Church with.
First, the plea deal you refer to is from a separate county. Bishop Finn is still under indictment and will be tried in Jackson County. The charges have not been dropped.
I'm sorry to say that Bishop Naumann's defense of Bishop Finn, to which you link, though well intentioned, was a disservice to the truth and to the Church.
Bishop Finn did not take this matter to the police. He was fully aware of the abuse of these children and did nothing to protect them. Beyond that, he made sure the evidence was destroyed.
Read my original post on this http://www.thwordinc.blogspot.com/2011/10/lets-step-outside-and-settle-this-thing.html , or better yet the independent Graves Report, which the diocese commissioned, and which I link to there.
Bishop Naumann and the Catholic Defense League are behaving despicably when they try to change the issue here. The issue is Bishop Finn's failure to protect children, not the Kansas City media.