Bill Donahue at the Catholic League writes:
TAKING AIM AT BISHOP FINNDarn. I hate it when things are not black or white.
This ad, written by Bill Donohue, was rejected by the Kansas City Star, without explanation. The close relationship between the newspaper and SNAP is disturbing, but to turn down $25,000 is still surprising. The Star can impose a gag rule on us, but it cannot control us. We intend to let everyone in Kansas City, Missouri know about this matter.
TAKING AIM AT BISHOP FINN
There is nothing wrong with asking legitimate questions about the way Bishop Robert Finn handled the Fr. Shawn Ratigan matter. But there is something wrong about not asking legitimate questions about the politics of those out to sink him. First, let’s recap what actually happened.
Last December, crotch-shot pictures of young girls, fully clothed, were found on Fr. Ratigan’s computer; there was one photo of a naked girl. The very next day, the Diocese contacted a police officer and described the naked picture; a Diocesan attorney was shown it. Because the photo was not sexual in nature, it was determined that it did not constitute child pornography. This explains why the Independent Review Board was not contacted—there was no specific allegation of child abuse.
When Fr. Ratigan discovered that the Diocese had learned of his fetish, he attempted suicide. When he recovered, he was immediately sent for psychiatric evaluation. It is important to note that Bishop Finn, who never saw any of the photos, did this precisely because he was considering the possibility of removing Fr. Ratigan from ministry. After evaluation (the priest was diagnosed as suffering from depression, but was not judged to be a pedophile), Fr. Ratigan was placed in a spot away from children and subjected to various restrictions. After he violated them, the Diocese called the cops. That’s when more disturbing photos were found. At the same time, Bishop Finn contacted an attorney to do an independent investigation into this matter.
Fair-minded persons may question whether the Diocese was too lenient, but unless there is reason to believe that a crime has been committed, there is no cause for contacting the authorities. Yet the Diocese—unlike the officials of other organizations faced with the same situation—contacted a police officer and a lawyer immediately. [Note: in 2007, a huge investigation by the Associated Press of teacher sexual misconduct revealed that Missouri school districts were guilty of “backroom deals” that allowed molesting teachers to “quietly move on.” So where is the dust-up about this? Where are the calls for grand jury probes?] Why, then, the attempt to get Bishop Finn?
And this is ironic in showing that the mindset of "our perverts aren't like other perverts" isn't found only among bishops:
Clohessy wants Bishop Finn behind bars for not moving fast enough on this matter. But when Clohessy was working for SNAP in the 1990s, he refused to contact the authorities when he learned of a man who was sexually abusing young men. That man was his brother, Kevin, a Catholic priest. Feeling conflicted, David wondered, “he’s my brother; he’s an abuser. Do I treat him like my brother? Do I treat him like an abuser?” He chose the former. “He [Kevin] told me he was getting help, getting treatment.” This is understandable. What is not understandable is his outrage at bishops when they voice the same sentiment about their brother priests. The duplicity is sickening.And:
Is SNAP really upset about child porn, or just when a priest is involved? Dr. Steve Taylor is a psychiatrist who is in prison for downloading child porn on his computer. He is not just an ordinary shrink with a sick appetite—he worked for SNAP for years. Before his conviction, Barbara Blaine, the founder of SNAP, intervened on his behalf and wrote to the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners asking them to give consideration to Taylor’s alleged humanitarian work—she didn’t want him to lose his license. Had Taylor been a priest, her reaction would have been vengeful.
In August, SNAP accused New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan of covering up an alleged incident involving a teenage girl who said she was “inappropriately touched” by an 87-year-old priest. Dolan knew nothing about it until the cops were called. SNAP has yet to apologize. It also accused Dolan of “acting secretively” about a previous case where a priest was suspended. But Dolan was not in New York at the time—he was the Archbishop of Milwaukee. Moreover, at the SNAP conference, Dolan was accused of shielding 55 molesting priests. This is libelous. But it is what we have come to expect from these people—a SNAP official once spat in the Archbishop’s face.And:
SNAP is so anti-priest that its Kentucky chapter leader once lobbied state authorities to warn residents when Catholic priests who have been accused, but not convicted, of sexual abuse move into their neighborhood. Just priests. A few years ago, in California, a boy’s father alleged that his son had been abused by a priest in the 1990s. The case was dismissed. The alleged victim, now a grown man, said it never happened. When SNAP then learned that this innocent priest was appointed to a sex abuse panel, it went ballistic. In SNAP’s mind, once a priest is charged, he’s guilty, no matter what the verdict says.
Between 2009-2010 (the latest years for which data are available), there was a 42 percent increase in false allegations against priests. So-called repressed memory figures prominently in these bogus charges. A few years ago, researchers at Harvard Medical School studied this phenomenon and concluded that it has no scientific basis—it is purely a cultural invention. Harvard psychology professor Richard J. McNally also studied this subject. “The notion that the mind protects itself by banishing the most disturbing, terrifying events is psychiatric folklore.” He added, “The more traumatic and stressful something is, the less likely someone is to forget it.”
I'd like to see the statistics on this, but Donahue doesn't provide a source for his claim. On the other hand, given the 40% false rape statistic, it is fair to be skeptical of those who are skeptical of such a claim.
Posts
1 comments:
Read the Diocesan Graves report. Once you do you will see that Donahue is leaving out so much nuance in his ad that the Star may have considered the quality too low to print. For example: Donahue states that Finn placed Ratigan away from children. He was placed with two Vincentian Fathers who reported to the Bishop's own Graves committee that Finn did not tell them Ratigan was restricted from children nor about the photos whereas Finn says he told them. Across the street is a separate Franciscan retreat house where Finn did tell the nuns the whole story and they agree. Good thing...because young people go there and apparently parents with their young. Donahue left out that the policeman, Capt. Smith was tricked over the phone into thinking there was only one photo and that it was of a relative. It was not a relative and it was part of what the Graves report said was a "staged series" of one girl whose diaper was further removed in each photo until in the final one, her private areas are visible. None of this was told to the policeman who then thought it was one family photo with too much nudity. So he gave the opinion that it was not porn. See pages 86 through 88... Graves report.
Donahue leaves out the fact that Finn agreed in court in a previous case (10 million dollar settlement) to report allegations immediately henceforth. Immediately would have been 7 months before the photo call to one cop..... based on the May 2010, 5 page report by Principal Hess about Ratigan's suspicious behaviour in her view and that of parents and teachers which report Hess gave to Msgr. Murphy who apprised Finn of the report by Hess 7 months prior to the discovery of photos on the computer by the computer repairman. Donahue leaves out way too many facts that are in the Graves Report which Finn himself commissioned from a law firm but only after Ratigan's arrest.
Post a Comment