Skip to main content

A Few More Observations about Bishop Finn

Image
By
  • 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. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Full Story on Bishop Finn

By
" Let's step outside and settle this thing like men ," she said, and she was a lady. " You're spewing anti-Catholic rhetoric !" he insisted. "How can you criticize a bishop when you're an actor and everyone knows actors are perverts and nitwits ," she screamed. (That last gal had a point). These are all reactions to my post last week about Rod Dreher's article on Bishop Finn's Indictment. And above all, people are charging me with believing the biased media coverage of the scandal. This, at least, is not true. In fact, everything I say in this post will be taken not from a media account of the scandal , but from the independent report on it as commissioned by the diocese , the Graves Report, which you can read on your own here . So let's shove the media aside and see for ourselves what's contained in this internal diocesan report conducted by an independent firm. *** Fr. Shawn Ratigan was a priest of the diocese of Kansas Cit...
99 comments
Read more

What Follows ...

By
At one point I took all of these posts down, because I felt I had been far too willingly brainwashed into a religious system that was doing more harm than good.   But, lately, I decided to republish some of the more interesting posts.  What follows is about ten percent of what I posted from 2007 to 2021.  They are in an odd chronological order, becuase Blogger is a clunky. Meanwhile, you can find my more sane (and more recent) musings here -  https://theateroftheword.substack.com .
Post a Comment
Read more

Charlie Johnston's Followers take the Next Wrong Step

By
NOTE - On April 29, 2106, Charlie Johnston responded to this post and my previous one with outright lies, doing his best to libel me in the process. I go into detail about that here - Charlie Johnston Lies about Me - and I Admire Him for It! Charlie is one of the most outrageous frauds in the Catholic Church. He actually fascinates me - in a sad way. Read on ... Charlie Johnston is a false prophet. His archbishop has "strongly" advised Catholics to be cautious of him.  His archbishop has also banned him from speaking in his own archdiocese. Charlie, in the great tradition of false prophets, has spun this warning to his own advantage , and Charlie's True Believers have rallied around him and have been guzzling the Kool-Aid since the bishop's letter and Charlie's spin appeared earlier this week. I posted about Charlie Johnston last fall , detailing at least one of his prophecies that have proven false, and detailing, from evidence on his Faceb...
13 comments
Read more