Slashdot Mirror
US Bishop Charged For Not Reporting Priest's Child Porn To Police
PolygamousRanchKid writes "Kansas City's Catholic bishop was charged Friday with not telling police about child pornography found on a priest's computer, making him the highest-ranking U.S. Catholic official indicted on a charge of failing to protect children. Finn has acknowledged that he and other diocese officials knew for months about hundreds of 'disturbing' images of children that were discovered on a priest's computer but did not report the matter to authorities or turn over the computer."
Honestly, that's the consistent thread with these clergy abuse cases that really makes it a matter of gross institutional rot, rather than an unfortunate but statistically inevitable consequence of having lots and lots of employees in contact with children.
Overwhelmingly, each organizational layer has shown itself more concerned with coverup than with cleanup, and the church management still seems to be fighting their medieval battle to assert that their club's rules trump civil law... What is even more vexing is that they seem largely to be getting away with it. Some civil payouts, a few old men whose statue of limitations hasn't quite run out; but the leadership has been absolutely teflon throughout the whole affair.
What really bothers me is that the laypeople get it and are trying to do the appropriate thing, but when they run things up the chain the guys up there clearly STILL don't get it. I don't know if it's arrogance or ignorance or what (but the Opus Dei reference makes me wonder about lingering old-school arrogance).
somebody that has pornographic pictures of children nude or engaged in sexual acts is a reasonable indicator that they are sexually aroused by such images and situations,
Sounds likely.
and at some point, will attempt to bring their own fantasies to life
Whoa, Nellie. Small difference between looking and fantasizing, huge difference between fantasizing and doing.
In related news, this week on public radio airwaves, Father Raymond Gravel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Gravel of the Canadian Roman Catholic Church compared the out of court settlement of 18 millions CAD (for 85 victims between 1950 and 1990) to being akin to turning the victims into prostitutes, because they would then be getting money in return of the sexual acts they performed. I almost crashed my car into a local church out of anger.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
I would think that somebody that has pornographic pictures of children nude or engaged in sexual acts is a reasonable indicator that they are sexually aroused by such images and situations, and at some point, will attempt to bring their own fantasies to life.
This a very dangerous line of reasoning. Everyone fantasizes about breaking the law from time to time; few people act on those impulses. Criminalizing bad thoughts is a terrible, terrible idea. Child porn is bad because it's abusive to the children involved in making it, and gives a profit incentive for film makers to abuse more children. It should be illegal for those reasons. As soon as you start accepting the notion that things can be illegal to think about, you start walking down a very dark path, and you won't like where it ends.
7 year old girls, or worse boys? I am going to report that...
As a matter of interest, why is it worse to abuse a boy than a girl?
I get that it's illegal to possess child porn. I get that it's illegal to make child porn. How in the fuck is it illegal to know that someone else has child porn?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano