Taking It Personally

About this time last year, I wrote about folks who Can't Care, Don't Care, or Won't Care, and I bragged about how I take my business ventures less personally than I used to.

Well, that was a hollow boast.

I take everything personally.

I don't think there's any other way to be an artist, a poet, an actor, a writer - or to live life in an engaged and engaging way.  I really don't think there's any other way to be an authentic Christian and to avoid the trap of Unreality in our daily lives and in our worship.

Thus, life usually hurts. 

And anything to do with the Church - or even with my fellow Catholics - really really hurts, because hypocrisy abounds, in my heart and in theirs.  For part of the sting is realizing how many people fit into the aforementioned DON'T CARE category - even when it comes to loving God and their neighbor. 

And so, it's the same old story.  There are lots of folks around who make a show of their faith, but who dump what the Church teaches the moment it becomes uncomfortable.  I mean, just look at the battles I've fought on this stupid little blog alone. 

I have defended ...

• Honesty against Catholics who make excuses for Lying
• Custody of the Eyes against Catholics who say it's OK to look at naked ladies that aren't your wife.
• Humane Treatment against Catholics who make excuses for Torture.
• Care for Children against Catholics who make excuses for Sex Abuse, and quote Canon Law to mitigate the wrongness of Statutory Rape.
• Protecting Children from abusive priests, and Finding Competent Psychological Help for abusive priests, against Catholics who think it's more important to protect and defend Those in Power, who refuse to do either.
• Loyalty to Jesus before loyalty to your political party, against Catholics who tell me I'm sinning when I criticize their heroes who shill for heartless pro-abortion anti-Catholic politicians (i.e. Romney and Obama).
• The Catechism against Catholics who tell me it has, in general, no significant authority.

... and so forth.

Now these aren't just disagreements, they are heated battles. 

Most recently, the more I point out that Statutory Rape is indeed "legitimate rape", the more my opponents dig in their heels.  If they find talking points somewhere in a combox on a blog site that appears in a cursory way to defend their position, they copy it here with great glee.  Meanwhile, as I write this, there's a fifty-year-old businessman seducing a 14-year-old girl he met on Facebook.  There's a gym coach pressuring a middle school student to commit sodomy.  There's a priest telling a 12-year-old altar boy that sexual release in the confessional frees him of his sins, and not to tell his parents he said that.

So I do tend to take this personally.

I think you'd have to be a bit dead not to.

The New Racism and the Old Catholics

Today, I spent lunch with my friend and Theater of the Word actor Dave Treadway of Steward Media and I was on a tear, complaining about many things, especially this.  "Dave," I said, "I used to think the liberals in the Church caused all the trouble, until I met the conservatives in the Church.  Now I'm getting used to rampant hypocrisy on both sides of the spectrum, from left to right - Catholics who are as bad as I am and worse, regardless of the number of devotions or novenas they pray.  I am hurt by, but used to, leftist Catholics who ignore Church teaching and right-wing Catholics who despise the Catechism.  I am used to, but hurt by, bad liberal bishops and bad conservative bishops.  I am used to, but hurt by, my own infernal sinfulness, which keeps rearing its ugly head again and again.

"But what really bothers me at a fundamental level is how many conservative Catholics there are who are making excuses for rape and child abuse."

***

To wit (from comboxes, blogs or other published material of the past two weeks) ...

• In cases where priests molest children, Fr. Benedict Groeschel stated in an interview published in the National Catholic Register, "A lot of the cases, the youngster – 14, 16, 18 – is the seducer."

• As a response to this comment, I posted what I thought was a simple explanation of What Rape Is , pointing out that a 14-year-old, for example, while he or she can act seductively toward an adult, can in no way seduce an adult; pointing out that statutory rape is indeed "rape", since a minor does not have the capacity to consent to a sex act; and after I did so, the dam burst in little trickles, including a Facebook friend who asserted, "Statutory rape is a legal fiction."  How little I suspected then that this is the attitude of many, if not most, Catholics.

• For this was followed by Catholic writer Dena Hunt insisting publicly that the Church Sex Scandal, "was not 'child abuse.' Most victims were post-pubescent teenage boys."  Since most boys are sexually mature by age 12 or 13, apparently when Father molests the 12-year-old altar boy in the sacristy, this is not child abuse because he's post-pubescent.

• Dena Hunt took offense that I said, in effect "child abuse is child abuse" and "rape is rape, including statutory rape."  On the contrary, she found my statement appallingly naive.  She said that 1. homosexual contact between an adult male and a post-pubescent boy is not an example of pedophilia; 2. statutory rape is not really rape; 3. post-pubescent children seduce grown men all the time.  I replied to all that nonsense here. 

• Since then, comboxers here and at the Ink Desk have said the following ... It is a legal fiction that minors cannot consent to legally significant conduct.  [i.e., sexual activity with an adult, but apparently also entering into contracts (see below), which is an example of "legally significant conduct"]

• Coming-of-age ceremonies historically took place at about 13, not at 21. [i.e., you're an adult at age 13, once you're Confirmed or Bar-mitzvahed, and therefore statutory rape laws are absurd and you're old enough to have sex with a middle aged man who finds your picture on Facebook.]

• I am incapable of believing that statutory rape is distinct from fornication. That is nothing but modernist absurdity invented by busybodies.  If this man has a daughter who gets seduced by her gym coach in a hotel room during a Middle-School varsity volley-ball field trip, I'll remind him that statutory rape is a modernist absurdity invented by busybodies.

• Commenters have also argued that since people got married very young in the past, sex between an adult male and a post-pubescent child in 2012 is fine and dandy.

Now I grant, and have granted from the beginning, that the age at which a minor is deemed competent to consent to sex varies from state to state and that there is a somewhat arbitrary nature to the age that is chosen.  But these folks are not arguing that 16 or 17 are "border ages"; they are arguing that consent is co-terminous with sexual maturity and that the law should reflect this.

But if this is the case, if the capacity to consent depends upon testicles and ovaries and not on the rational mind and will, then we must accept the inevitable conclusion.  Since menstruation can begin in a girl as young as age 9 or so, and since the production of sperm can begin in boys as young as 12 or so, then these post-pubescent children should be understood to possess the capacity to consent to the following:

9-year-old girls and 12-year-old boys should be allowed to

1. Vote
2. Drive cars
3. Enter into contracts
4. Be drafted
5. Drink
6. Attain independence from their parents
7. Get married without parental consent
8. Get abortions without parental consent
9. Smoke
10. Be elected to public office



For society to insist otherwise, for the State to claim that maturity and consent is achieved only gradually, and at various stages of growth is merely a legal fiction, having no connection to Natural Law whatsoever.

And if this is absurd, commenters, then at what should the age of consent be set?  16, 17, 18?  Or are 15-year-olds capable of consent?  Are 14-year-olds?  When is a child a child and an adult an adult?  When can I , a 51-year-old man, have the luxury being seduced by a 15-year-old high school cheerleader and tell my wife it's the girl's fault?

Again, of the commenters who have argued in this manner, I know none that are parents.  Some of the commenters are anonymous, but of those I know, none are parents.

***

But getting back to my lunch with Dave.

He looked at me and asked simply, "Kevin, why do you think this is?  Why do so many Catholics believe this?"

And the only answer I could come up with was this ...

Dave, it's like racism.  When I was growing up, people used the "N word" all the time.  It was simply assumed (in white living rooms and dining rooms in Missouri, at least) that black people were inferior to whites.  They might be allowed a certain political equality, but it was, for example, very wrong of a white woman to date a black man. 

Likewise, when my mother was in the work force, it was understood that if you were a secretary in a corporate environment, the middle-aged bosses would hit on you and say suggestive things to you.  Sometimes it was all in fun, but it was always a bit more than that.  And the casting couch - gay and straight - has been a mainstay of show business, and still is.

Now we've come a long way regarding race relations in this country, but it was only twenty years ago, with the Clarence Thomas / Anita Hill hearings that any serious attention was focused on sexual harassment in the workplace, which until then was considered a "legal fiction".  We used to think "sexual harassment" was no big deal; now we tend to realize that an employer has an unfair advantage over any employee, so that an employer's sexual advances are indeed a form of harassment - whether welcome or not - given the inequity of the relationship.

But these things take a long time to change.  I suspect that the sex abuse scandal in the Church took hold not so much because priests were perverts and bishops were enablers (which they both were), but because the laity in the pews said, "Oh, kids bounce back from this sort of thing.  And Father gives great homilies.  This is blown all out of proportion.  And anyway, that boy or girl wanted it and probably seduced him.  He's under such stress, after all."  Add to that, hysteria ginned up over the Church-hating media and put in a pinch of folks like Fr. Z, who defends enabling bishops and refuses to allow comments that tell the truth, and you get what we've got - Catholics defending Child Abuse and Statutory Rape.

Good Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us all.

Where Sex Abuse Comes From

From the combox at my post Making Room for Evil ...



Anonymous said...


[Quoting me] "pederasty is a sub-set of pedophilia"

No, it's not.

And I notice in your example of "comparing" child abuse, you couldn't actually bring yourself to present a true comparison between pederasty and pedophilia. Were you afraid they'd agree one was worse than the other?


September 12, 2012 8:43 PM

Kevin O'Brien said...

... of course pederasty is a subset of pedophilia. They are equally evil. What the hell is the matter with you?


September 13, 2012 4:43 AM

Anonymous said...

Statutory rape isn't necessarily the same thing [as "legitimate rape"], even if it's bad.

Put it this way:

A guy in his 20s wants to have sex with a 16-year-old girl who is physically an adult in every possible way.

A guy in his 20s wants to have sex with a 7-year-old boy.

Those are both the same thing to you? Surely not.


September 13, 2012 12:31 PM

Kevin O'Brien said...

Anonymous, if a 20-year-old is having sex with a sexually developed 16-year-old, it's still rape, since she does not have the mature capacity to consent. [Why do people not want to get this?  This is what makes "statutory rape" rape, and commenters continue to ignore this.]

And if any 20-year-old were convicted of statutory rape in such a case, the judge would take their nearness of age into account when sentencing - but such a mitigating circumstance does not alter the essential fact that STATUTORY RAPE IS RAPE and is a violent act - as it forces an act onto a CHILD (pubescent or not) who does not have the capacity to consent to such an act.

So how about a 50 year old priest having sex with a 14 year old boy or girl who "wants it". Is that rape?

You're damn right it is.

It is absolutely horrific to me that people are trying to excuse statutory rape. Anonymous, your attitude is sinful and hurtful and frankly rather sick.  [In fairness, Anonymous is not coming right out and excusing statutory rape in so many words, but that's what his argument logically and irrevocably implies, and it's an argument from hell.  This is why Todd Akin's use of the phrase "legitimate rape", which implied - among other things - that molesting a child was not in fact rape, was so offensive to people.]

By the way, I'd like to hear from ONE PARENT who thinks that statutory rape is fine and dandy and quite excusable. My Facebook friend who defended it is not a parent; Dena Hunt who defends it is not a parent; Fr. Groeschel who makes excuses for it is not a parent.

My friends who are parents not only realize the limited capacity of post-pubescent children [try raising a few], but say things as sensible as this (from an email to me sent by a friend of mine who has kids) ...

Simple hobbit that I am, I don't think it is possible in any way, size, shape or form for a teenager to "seduce" an adult. You don't need any sophisticated philosophical or theological or scientific arguments to show that. On the contrary, if you have to explain it to someone, that person is a Grade A dolt, and is not worth the effort.

It seems the upshot of all this is our mistaken notion that sperm-production makes the man and ovulation makes the woman.  Since girls as young as 9 can ovulate, is it OK to have sex with them?  Since 13 year old boys can typically produce sperm, does this mean they're "men"? 

What in the hell is wrong with us??????? 

Priests are not molesting children in a vacuum.  This is a culture, as Mark Shea points out, that despises virginity and hence despises children.  When the laity winks at sexual relations between an adult male and a sexually developed but emotionally and intellectually vulnerable child, and even goes so far as to say that such children are fully capable of seducing adult men, we get what we get in the clergy - sexual abuse by priests and bishops enabling them.

How can we expect the clergy to reform if the laity believe such hateful things about the most vulnerable among us?

Father Zzzzz - Wake Up!

Father Z. has written a rather lame post in defense of Kansas City Bishop Finn, (more accurately, a post attacking Finn's critics).  Bishop Finn, for those who haven't been following, enabled a child pornographer priest to continue to victimize children by taking pornographic pictures of them, refused to call police, helped destroy evidence in the case, and spent $1.4 million of money from Catholic Schools and Parishes to defend himself from related misdemeanor charges that carried no serious chance of jail time and no real financial fines.  Read my many posts in which I go into detail on this.  Or read the facts of the case, unfiltered by the "liberal anti-Catholic media" (which, apparently, includes orthodox pro-life anti-contraception anti-Obama Catholics like me) - read the documented facts of the case here or here.

Mistaken as Fr. Z's post is, it gets worse: Father Z. is censoring out commenters who disagree with him!  I know of at least three people who attempted to post reasonable comments to counter the Finn-spin, whose comments were never posted.  But there are plenty of comments published in support of the post.

Now, sometimes I moderate comments on this blog, and I will occasionally delete comments that are either too snarky or just plain hateful, so it seems Fr. Z. must feel the same regarding folks who point out the actual and disturbing sins-of-Finn, and who point out (in this case) that the National Catholic Reporter, liberal as that paper is, is quite right in calling for Bishop Finn's resignation. 

But Fr. Z. won't go there. 

Were your daughter's genitals photographed by the priest Bishop Finn protected and sent unsupervised back into circulation?  Don't post that on Fr. Z's blog - which is probably the most read blog in the Catholic blogosphere.  He won't let you.  Because this is not about justice, about protecting the innocent, about Christian charity, or about meeting even the minimum standard of human decency.

It's about us vs. them; and if us includes pedophiles and their enablers, well at least we're not THEM.

The Media is the Message-Muffler

Rod Dreher at the American Conservative writes a powerful piece about NCR's firing of the reporter who interviewed Fr. Groeschel.

Rod points out ...

People who run churches and church organizations often don’t understand what communications (journalism, filmmaking, etc.) is. They think it’s all supposed to be publicity, and so they guarantee mediocrity, and ultimately the discouragement of talented people — artists and journalists — who have good and useful talents to give to the whole church.

Exactly.  This attitude propogates what I call The Catholic Ghetto. 

Or, as a friend of mine recently said, "Christian movies are like porn.  The lighting's bad, the acting's bad, and you know how it's gonna end."

Rod's article is worth a read.

Making Room for Evil

Content Warning: I get a bit graphic in my last paragraph in bold below.  Readers may wish to skip it, especially victims of abuse.  I'm trying to point out what this crime really consists of.  Sometimes the language needs to match the act so those who don't understand start to get a clue.

***

Thanks to those of you who offered me support via email and Facebook and elsewhere, regarding my Rant of Pain . 

What steams me the most is how otherwise good Catholics say things like this - what a Catholic writer and fellow blogger said below (from a combox, directed at me and my position on child abuse, which I go into in my post What Rape Is)

Just to clarify--again. (1)There is a distinction between pedophilia and pederasty. The distinction exists for a reason and shouldn't be disregarded in order to indulge one's emotional outrage. (2)There is also a distinction between forcible and statutory rape (ask a victim of forcible about that.) (3)And yes, it is quite possible for a teenager to seduce an adult. That is simply true, and saying so does not mean -- repeat, does not mean -- that one is "excusing" rape, or child molestation or abuse.

***

Let's take this horrific argument point by point.  I do this not to be rough on this writer, whose work is generally admirable, but because I'm learning that she represents entrenched thinking in the Catholic Church and in society at large - as witnessed by Fr. Groeschel, who meant well, but who blamed the victims - and so I think I have an obligation to tackle this nonsense.  Let's begin ...


(1) There is a distinction between pedophilia and pederasty. The distinction exists for a reason and shouldn't be disregarded in order to indulge one's emotional outrage.

This woman really thinks I don't get it.  She buys the Bill Donohue line that the Church Sex Scandals were not about child abuse at all, but about too many homos in the priesthood.  She accuses one of "indulging one's emotional outrage" because when post-pubescent boys of age 14, 15, or 16 are molested by priests, one should apparently not be outraged.  One should rather say, "This is pederasty!  Not pedophilia!" - without realizing that pederasty is simply pedophilia between an adult male and his under age male victim - pederasty is a sub-set of pedophilia.  And since I am the "one" who is "indulging one's emotional outrage" (her comment was addressed to me, as you can see on the original post), am I to relax a bit and say, "Well, boys will be boys.  Thank God it's typically a priest forcing a 14-year-old boy to commit sodomy and not a priest forcing a 14 year old girl to have intercourse!  Thank God it's not as bad as all that!  And the bishops enabling this behavior - well, they're enabling pederasty, not pedophilia, so we're OK!"  Is that what I'm supposed to say?  Does this spurious distinction make any sense???

(2)There is also a distinction between forcible and statutory rape (ask a victim of forcible about that.) 

Absolutely, entirely and abominably wrong.  Wrong to the point of being evil, that's how wrong this is.  Victims of statutory rape are forced to have sex, because CHILDREN CAN NOT CONSENT TO HAVE SEX, not even teens who act provocatively.  That's why we call it RAPE.  When children have sex with an adult, it is always a violent crime and the child is the victim - a victim who will be scarred for life.  Ask any survivor of incest or statutory rape about that.  They do not have the capacity to consent to sex.  To argue that they do is to make the case of NAMBLA , an organization which lobbies for the legalization of what this writer calls "pederasty".  That this writer should dig in her heels on this subject, when both Natural Law and common sense and my own writings on this that she has read make it quite plain that RAPE IS RAPE IS RAPE IS RAPE is beyond me.  Hell, yes, it makes one "indulge one's emotional outrage", and it damn well should.  I have pointed out again and again that a minor does not have the capacity to consent to sex with an adult, but this point is conveniently ignored, in typically internet argument fashion. 

(3) And yes, it is quite possible for a teenager to seduce an adult. That is simply true, and saying so does not mean -- repeat, does not mean -- that one is "excusing" rape, or child molestation or abuse.

It is NOT possible for a child to seduce an adult, even a teen aged child, EVER.  How anyone can possibly think this is utterly unfathomable to me.

For starters, no one can be "seduced".  No one can be led to perform a sex act he or she does not want to perform, shy of rape (see above).  But more than that, even though there are many teens who behave provocatively toward adults, such behavior is always an indication of a personality problem on the part of the teen that needs to be addressed, it is "acting out", and such behavior is coming from a person of limited rational, spiritual and emotional capacity, and is directed toward a fully formed adult.  It is always up to an adult to be responsible enough to refrain from committing an act of utter depravity and evil; it is up to any adult to choose - either to molest or not to molest - a child, even a teen "who wants it really bad" (as we used to say in the locker room). 

This is simply and obviously blaming the victim.

• Yes, teens can behave seductively.  No, they can never seduce an adult. 

• Yes, molesters are broken and damaged men who need our sympathy and help.  No, their behavior is never excusable, not even if they're on the verge of a nervous breakdown and targeted by a horny 14-year-old (Fr. Groeschel's scenario - which, incidentally sounds much more like the manipulative excuse of a man in therapy than a typical real life situation).

So there you have it. 


The reason Fr. Groeschel's comments were not edited out of the National Catholic Register is that many people - including many good Catholics - agree with him. 

So when Father Chester repeatedly forces his penis into the anus of his 14-year-old altar boy and tells him not to mention this on fear of damnation and hell ... well, it's pederasty (not pedophilia), it's statutory rape (not legitimate rape), and the kid clearly wanted it.  So many of them do, after all.

It's certainly not Father Chester's fault!  That much we know.

Good Jesus Christ, have mercy on us all.

A Rant of Pain

OK, I'm going to get this out of my system.

Members of my immediate family have been victimized by sexual abuse.  I can tell you personally of the pain it causes.  I can tell you that when an otherwise good Catholic that I will not identify writes a blog post in which she argues that if an adult has sex with, say, a fourteen year old it's not CHILD ABUSE because teens are sexual creatures and when priests have sex with them (she argues in so many words) it's because the kids want it- I want to scream.

When one of the best men I know is thrown into a dark night of the soul, into drinking and weeping over Bishop Finn enabling CHILD ABUSE and members of Finn's Opus Dei prelature covering up, lying, and making excuses for him and belittling the severity of this abuse - I want to get drunk and weep a bit myself.

When commenters here and elsewhere on the blogosphere are defending Fr. Groeschel's indefensible defense of abusers, which consisted of blaming the victims for seducing them; and when these same commenters read Bill Donohue's lies but refuse to read the facts of the case regarding Bishop Finn's conviction - I want to hit somebody.

And for me this is tied in with everything else.

In my twelve years as an adult convert to the Catholic Church, I have seen this issue build. 

Why is the music bad and the architecture ugly? 

• Because nobody cares. 

Why has the sacrament of Confirmation become "graduation from church"? 

• Because nobody cares. 

Why are bishops allowed to turn seminaries into orgy factories and destroy the faith of their dioceses, some given full reign to do so over a thirty or forty year period? 

• Because nobody cares. 

Why is it that neither adults nor children know the fundamentals of Catholic teaching on Faith and Morals? 

• Because nobody cares.

Why are principals of Catholic parochial schools allowed to bully parents and children and lock out any and all constructive criticism?

• Because nobody cares.

Why are priests allowed to ABUSE CHILDREN and bishops allowed to enable them to do do?

• Because nobody cares.

Why are Catholic media celebrities defended when they propagate anti-Catholic teaching and make excuses for anti-Catholic political candidates?

• Because nobody cares.

Well, I care.

I care about this Church and I've had enough.

These blog posts - all of them - come from a place of pain.

There's nothing I can do to make other people care.  We have an actress who's an atheist Lesbian, and she's a better person than 90% of the Christians I know.  But that's not my problem.

I can't fix bishops, popes, deacons, or 90% of other Christians.

I can fix myself.  I can renounce the sin that's in my own dark heart, the very sin that allows me to see it and hate it in others.  I can repent and believe.  I can be the best father, husband, and friend that I can.  I can kick all secret devotion to lies and half-truths out of my life.  I can continue the white martyrdom of blogging and running Theater of the Word Incorporated - an apostolate that has received more persecution of various kinds in the past few years than I can even describe.

I can realize that it's all about Christ and me and my neighbor.

And I can get on with my life.

But I will not shut up.  I will cry when I have to, rant when it seems it must be done, and never back down.  I hate sin and all of the lousy excuses we make for it, the copious room we give it in our souls.  We invite sin in, we set up an easy chair for it, we make it a nice drink, we invite it to sit down and visit with us.  We even take it into the bedroom and make love to it.  It bears our progeny.  And we laugh and go to Mass on Sunday and parrot the Act of Contrition and secretly, silently harbor this hidden sick cancer that enslaves us and pays us nothing but the wages of death.

Good God, please help us and turn us toward You.

Pray for victims of sin and for their sinful victimizers.

A Few More Observations about Bishop Finn

• Bill Donohue and others are claiming the pictures Fr. Ratigan took were not pornographic.  If they were not pornographic, why was Fr. Ratigan convicted of child pornography?  Are pictures of the naked vagina of a two-year old girl not pornographic?  Are pictures taken with a spy camera up the skirt of a sixth grader at her birthday party not pornographic?  Donohue should be ashamed of himself.

• Bishop Finn clearly did not serve the people of his diocese; he let a dangerous priest have access to children without warning any of the children or their families.  But one of the people poorly served by Bishop Finn was the priest himself.  Fr. Ratigan is discovered to have taken hundreds of pornographic pictures of little girls at his parish, claims that he hugs them "to help them get to heaven", tries to kill himself, and is sent not to regular counseling with a professional therapist - but to a hand-picked fellow member of Opus Dei, a marriage counselor in Pennsylvania who simply talks to Fr. Ratigan over the phone!  (In the many reports I've read on this case, there is some confusion as to whether Fr. Ratigan ever saw this counselor in person; if so, it was for one or two sessions at most).  Fr. Ratigan deserved better than this.  He deserved real therapy with a counselor who specialized in priests with sexual perversions, not occasional phone chats with a marriage counselor who was foolish enough to buy into Ratigan's lie, "The principal is out to get me."  Fr. Ratigan was the victim here - a victim of a misdiagnosis and of Bp. Finn's attempt to sweep everything under the rug.

• Bishop Finn allowed the diocese to spend $1.4 million to defend him, money taken from an account funded by Catholic Schools and parishes.  To defend him from misdemeanor charges!  Had Bp. Finn plea bargained from the get go, he would have gotten at worst the sentence he received - a year's probation, with suspended imposition of sentence.  There was no way he was going to jail on misdemeanor charges, even though the charges carried a year's imprisonment each as their potential max.  Nobody goes to jail on misdemeanor charges, least of all a first-time offender who's a leader in the community.  And the two Jackson County charges carried maximum fines of $1000 each.  The diocese spent nearly a thousand times that amount to defend him!  This is unconscionable, and shows the utter lack of contrition on Bishop Finn's part. 

Finn Guilty as Sin

As I had suspected, the spin is being put on Bishop Finn's conviction.  The Catholic League's Bill Donohue and others are doing a grave disservice to the Church by making excuses for the inexcusable.

For the truth - the truth presented in court - Read this document. 

It is the stipulation of testimony in this case.

It contains the facts that both sides agreed to.  It shows, without a doubt, that Bishop Finn is not fit to be running a diocese.

It shows that the photos in question were clearly pornographic and that Bishop Finn was not at all concerned for the victims involved, and that he was angry that the police were contacted at all - much less six months after the photographs were discovered.  It shows that Bishop Finn knew that Fr. Ratigan continued to ignore the restraints placed upon him, and that he knew Fr. Ratigan continued to be a threat to children (on Easter Sunday Fr. Ratigan visited a family of parishioners and "was caught taking photographs, under the table, up their daughter’s skirt, according to a federal indictment"), that Bishop Finn knew that Fr. Ratigan continued to contact children, and continued to approach children on Facebook.  Bishop Finn gave Fr. Ratigan access to children at the retreat house where Fr. Ratigan was stationed, for crying out loud!  Bishop Finn warned no one about this man.

Today the New York Times gives a brief summary of the story.  And U.S. Catholic points out that Bishop Finn violated canon law as well as civil law, qualifying him for removal due to dereliction of duty.  They call, quite simply, for his ouster or resignation.

Finn's resignation, especially if he initiated it himself, would be the best thing for the church in the U.S. and for his diocese. Finally we would have a bishop who would, instead of expressing "regret . . . for the hurt these events have caused," would instead admit that he made a mistake that fatally undermines his ministry as a bishop.

Finn-ishing Up

There's something about Christ and how we fail Him that we can learn from Kansas City / St. Joseph Bishop Finn.


Here's what Bishop Finn did  -

• He was informed by letter by a Catholic School Principal at St. Patrick's Parish in Kansas City that parents and teachers were concerned about the behavior of their pastor, Fr. Ratigan, who was trying to spend time alone with students, who insisted on giving a little girl a massage at a church event, who was taking a lot of pictures of  little girls, and in whose garden a pair of little girl's underwear was discovered.  Bishop Finn ignored the letter.

• A year later, a computer technician finds hundreds of photos on Fr. Ratigan's computer - photos of little girl students at the parish school, and one of a sleeping two year old, with her diaper moved to the side to reveal her genitalia - all taken by Fr. Ratigan.  In fact, the photos of the students were taken surreptitiously on the playground, at the cafeteria and elsewhere, and included close-ups of girls' crotches, and some where their underwear or genitals were showing.  Also on the computer were links to sites that sell spy cameras.  The computer is taken to Msgr. Murphy, the vicar general, who before seeing the photos, (that's right, before seeing the photos) calls an off-duty police officer and asks him if a few photos of a mostly-clothed children could be pornographic.  The off-duty police officer says, "Maybe."  This is the only contact the diocese makes with the police, until they are forced to contact them again six months later.  Some of the photos are downloaded from the computer by the chancery, but Bishop Finn gives the computer to a relative of Fr. Ratigan's, who then promptly destroys it.

• Fr. Ratigan attempts suicide but survives.  He is sent to a counselor in Pennsylvania for a very brief evaluation.  The counselor says, "This man is fine.  He just needs the principal of the school to stop picking on him."  Bishop Finn does not allow the parishioners to know what has happened; they are only told of the suicide attempt.  No effort is made to determine who the victims were.  No effort is made to contact their families, to see if the children were physically assaulted as well as photographed.  No counseling or outreach or intervention of any kind is offered.  The victims and their families are kept entirely in the dark.

• Bishop Finn assigns Fr. Ratigan to a retreat center in Kansas City where Catholic School students are regularly sent on retreat.  Bishop Finn tells no one at the retreat house that Ratigan is dangerous.  He is given full access to students and even says Mass for school groups.  Fr. Ratigan is discovered taking inappropriate pictures of a little girl at this retreat center on Easter Sunday, 2011.

• Meanwhile, Fr. Ratigan makes contact with some of his former parishioners and complains that he has been railroaded and treated unfairly by being removed as pastor after his suicide attempt -which, he says, was caused by the principal, who is out to get him (though he had left a letter confessing all his crimes the day he tried to kill himself - a letter the contents of which were not revealed to the families involved).  The parishioners take pity on him and invite him to their homes, including to birthday parties for their young girls.  Parishioners are doing this because Bishop Finn has refused to let them know that they've already been victimized and that this man is dangerous.

• When the off-duty cop finds out that the computer (criminal evidence now destroyed due to Bishop Finn's actions) contained not a few but hundreds of pictures, some of them clearly pornographic, he tells Msgr. Murphy that if Murphy won't make a report, he himself will.  At this point, six months after the photos were discovered, the police are contacted and Fr. Ratigan is arrested.

• Bishop Finn holds "listening sessions" at the parish, where the victims' families are asked to "share" how the "feel" about something the diocese hid from them and only revealed to them when they were forced to.

• The diocese commissions an independent report of this matter, which you can read by clicking here.  It is far more damning than anything I've put in this blog post.

• Bishop Finn is charged for failure to report suspected child abuse by two Missouri counties.  He cops a plea with Clay County, in which he lets the secular government have an active hand in how the Church is run.

• Just today Bishop Finn is convicted in Jackson County in a non-jury trial.  He receives probation and a suspended imposition of sentence.  The diocese admits to spending $1.4 million dollars to defend him, money that comes from Catholic parishes and Catholic Schools in the diocese of Kansas City - St. Joseph.

Got all that?  There's a lot more, but that gives a brief overview of what Bishop Finn did.

Here's what Bishop Finn should have done -

• Put the needs of the children and families of his diocese above those of covering his backside.

• Once charged, admit he failed to do his duty, repent in sackcloth and ashes, plea bargain with both counties, resign, and save the diocese $1.4 million dollars, money which could fund either Catholic education or counseling for the victims.

Now I'm not saying I'm perfect.  I'm not saying I'm better than Bishop Finn.  I'm not saying we should judge the state of his soul.  In fact, I just wrote an earnest post on how we're all sinners, including me.

But I am saying this -

What we are seeing in Bishop Finn is what we see all around us.  Instead of successors to the Apostles (bishops) behaving like successors to the Apostles - willing to risk everything and follow Christ - we get middle-management bureaucrats.  A priest has abused children?  Don't tell the families!  We'll get sued!  Cover everything up.  "What would Jesus do? "  Hell, no!    Forget Christian charity, forget even human compassion, this is a corporation whose assets we've got to protect - though over a million of those assets will be used to keep my own sorry asset out of jail (even though jail time is inconceivable in a plea bargain over misdemeanors and I've really got nothing to fear).  And if I get a light sentence after all is said and done?  Well, my buddy Bishop Joe over in KC, Kansas will write another article claiming that's it's all the fault of the pro-abortion anti-Catholic media!  He'll back me up!  So will that Donohue guy who spun the whole thing last year so that everybody was at fault but me!  I'll come off smelling like a rose while Fr. Shawn Ratigan beats off to pictures of your eight-year-old daughter's crotch and panties that I refuse to tell you he took, just in case you might want to invite him over with his spy cam for her next birthday party.  And if the cops force us to tell you about it (they'll never get all the evidence, I saw to that), well, I'll hold a listening session and have you fill out a card telling me how the visual violation of your daughter and our enabling of it makes you feel.  Yeah, that's the ticket!

The lesson? 

The time has come.  The Kingdom of God is at hand.

REPENT and believe.

***

ADDENDUM: Here's a helpful timeline the Kansas City Star has put together on this case.

***

ADDENDUM 2: As I wrote this week, this circling the wagons trick to defend our own, whether right or wrong, is precisely why we aren't effective evangelists.

Bishop Finn: GUILTY

See the report here.

See my take on this and other Church sex scandals here.

A Triolet

Let's chase from every single parish

Hell and sin and Holy Fear

Let's make our architecture garish.

Let's chase from every single parish

God almighty. Then let's cherish

Moods and feelings, vague, unclear -

Let's chase from every single parish

Hell and sin and Holy Fear

Affluence and Unreality

More from my secret diary, names still changed to protect reality ...

November 4, 2005


On tour with my actress Vickie, who is very innocent, but also quite vain. She told me a repulsive story about her faith in this woman who claims to have raised a million dollars to produce a movie that this woman has written and that this woman is going to star in. Vickie has been keeping in touch with her for two years, and has recently offered to suck butt to get a role in the picture. “She told me she’s not sure there’s a role for me in the film, but there might be a small one. I told her I was willing to do anything to help her, anything at all. I said, ‘You’ll need a personal assistant to run errands for you and help you arrange things and help you on set. I’ll be glad to do all that for you,’ and she said that definitely sounds like a possibility!!!’”

Later, sitting at lunch with Vickie and listening to her talk about her pipe dreams regarding screenwriting and so forth, it began to dawn on me. She was saying, “I’d love to do some writing, and I plan on entering ideas in notebooks throughout the day, but it’s so hard to find time for that …” This from a girl who does not work, who lives with Mommy and Daddy, who has no children to care for, who sleeps until noon, who’s not in school, and who spends her time taking odd acting jobs when she can get them. She does not run her own business, she has no scheduled prayer, worship, or study time from what I can tell, and there are no demands placed upon her to feed or care for herself or anyone else.

What a life of make-believe she leads, from her fantasies about stardom to her quasi-virginal affair with Mark, to everything in between.

What is it about this attitude and this unreal life that she lives? If she had a job and a family, if she weren’t at age 26 still living as if she were 15, if she were truly in the theatrical or motion picture industry, if she had a reason for getting off her butt and working on these things, she might get them done. The unreal life that she leads is not helping her grow up, follow her calling, or even get a damn thing done during her days that are filled with vanity and fantasy.

I was like this. I know this feeling.

It seems that Real Life – which is to say, suffering, hard work, and sacrifice – Real Life is what saves us. The Lord did not make it easy for us to enter the new Sabbath. Leisure will only be sanctified for us when we get there for real – when we pay the price by suffering and sacrificing for what we love. And Christianity is the only religion that is about Real Life – the only religion that has the cross.

Affluence, prolonged adolescence, and welfare are poison for our souls. Suffering is, paradoxically, our antitoxin.

The Demagogue - Phase Two

Apparently, Fr. West of Human Life International is launching a full-scale obsessive-compulsive assault on Mark Shea via Twitter and Facebook.  I won't link to it.  It's filled with half-truths and personal attacks on one of the best Catholics I've ever had the privilege to know.

This is phase two of the Demagogue, and it's a damn shame that it's coming from a cleric in the Church. 

Begin with tolerance for a relatively benign and certainly well-intentioned and even somewhat fun demagoguery (like that of Michael Voris) and proceed on to a mean-spirited hate campaign designed to destroy.  Phase One leads to Phase Two.

Let us pray for all involved.

Human Life International has had its problems in the past - particularly with Fr. Euteneuer, who went unhinged and whom they made no attempt to reign in.  If they do nothing to corral Fr. West, that will tell us everything we need to know about the integrity of that organization.