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."

Comments

Is that how that works?

[iluvcapra]

It would seem strange that an employer would be required to report such a thing, particularly if there was no evidence that any child had been harmed, however, it would appear to be so, the indictment is specifically for "Failure of Mandated Reporter to Report." Here is the relevant Missouri statute.

PP 4 reads:

In addition to those persons and officials required to report actual or suspected abuse or neglect, any other person may report in accordance with sections 210.109 to 210.183 if such person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been or may be subjected to abuse or neglect or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse or neglect.

Does possession of child porn constitute "reasonable cause to suspect"?

Re:Is that how that works?

[FooAtWFU]

Does possession of child porn constitute "reasonable cause to suspect"?

You'd have to ask the judge and jury.

Also, thank you for thinking about the law instead of jumping on the "hate hate hate + guilty until proven innocent" bandwagon. I'd mod you up if I hadn't wasted all my points for the day.

Re:Is that how that works?

[iluvcapra]

You'd have to ask the judge and jury.

As far as the law is concerned it's probably not much of an issue, if you asked me and my kid was in that class I'd say "hell yes!" The first part of the law is very much built around what you do if you see or suspect abuse, not abuse that may happen... if the priest's superior knows that his priest-employee has been looking at kiddie porn for 30 years with no instances of abuse, then he can come to a reasonable conclusion that he won't abuse. He should definitely FIRE the guy, and carefully interview everyone around him, the children he has been in contact with, and their families.

But I guess the families have a right to know why the teacher is leaving, and they'd all be rather motivated to drop a dime on him, so I guess the law is proper -- it compels the mandated person to do what was eventually going to have to happen anyways, even if it were less demanding.

The problem is, the law is ordering you to ruin someone's career and life when no one has been harmed, when merely firing someone or moving them out of contact with children would be a completely suitable remedy to the danger the law is trying to prevent. If the cops throw up a sting and catch him with kiddie porn, then the law's the law and he should go to jail, but are we ready to force people's friends and coworkers to turn someone in for this?

Re:Is that how that works?

[JoshuaZ]

Does possession of child porn constitute "reasonable cause to suspect"?

I don't know enough about the statute to directly answer that question. It wouldn't surprise me if it did simply given how as a society we treat child porn and anything remotely connected to it. But in this context one doesn't even need to go that far. From the article:

Finn acknowledged earlier this year that St. Patrick's School Principal Julie Hess had more than a year ago raised concerns that a priest was behaving inappropriately around children, but that he didn't read her written report until after the Rev. Shawn Ratigan was charged with child pornography counts this spring. Ratigan has pleaded not guilty. In a memo dated May 19, 2010, Hess wrote that several people had complained Ratigan was taking compromising pictures of young children and that he allowed them to sit on his lap and reach into his pocket for candy

So this wasn't just that they had found pictures but that they had found pictures and had of actual behavior. TFA discusses further problems. I don't think a jury will need to think very hard about what exactly constitutes reasonable suspicion in this case.

Re:Is that how that works?

[bcrowell]

if the priest's superior knows that his priest-employee has been looking at kiddie porn for 30 years with no instances of abuse, then he can come to a reasonable conclusion that he won't abuse.

"In a memo dated May 19, 2010, Hess wrote that several people had complained Ratigan was taking compromising pictures of young children and that he allowed them to sit on his lap and reach into his pocket for candy."

The problem is, the law is ordering you to ruin someone's career and life when no one has been harmed,[...]

If the porn is a cartoon drawing, then probably no child has been harmed. But that wasn't the case here. "Seven months later, a computer technician working on Ratigan's laptop found hundreds of what he called "disturbing" images of children, most of them fully clothed with the focus on their crotch areas, and a series of pictures of a 2- to 3-year-old girl with her genitals exposed." If someone took crotch shots of my daughter when she was 2, I would certainly consider that "harm."

Re:Is that how that works?

[flaming error]

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.

Re:Is that how that works?

[yndrd1984]

Is a Catholic Bishop considered an employer?

Who do you think hires and fires Catholic priests?

Having some photos of girls that might be 16-17 showing off their tits (developed tits) at a club or party is not child porn.

In the real world maybe not, but according to the legal system it certainly is.

I would think that somebody that has pornographic pictures of children nude or engaged in sexual acts is a reasonable indicator that ... at some point, [they] will attempt to bring their own fantasies to life.

Absolutely not. Limiting myself to fantasies I had today at work, I can think of three - running my boss over with a car, having sex with the married hottie, and taking an axe to a certain server - that I would never act upon. I can't bring myself to believe that people who fantasize about children are somehow the only ones who must, without fail, act on their every dark desire.

If I found child pornography on a computer in my company I would investigate it immediately. Absolute first thing I would determine is if the employee is actually accessing it, and is it accessible from the public Internet. Meaning, was my company hacked and the system being used as a dump to serve child porn. Either way, once my initial investigation was complete (which would be that day), I would involve the authorities without question.

This I agree with, without reservation.

Re:Is that how that works?

[demonlapin]

Having some photos of girls that might be 16-17 showing off their tits (developed tits) at a club or party is not child porn.

It is, however, prosecutable as such. Just as an FYI. And yes, judges are acutely aware of the fact that it is legal for some people (e.g., two 16-year-olds) to have sex in almost every state but illegal for them to look at each other's bodies while they do so.

Re:Is that how that works?

[westlake]

It would seem strange that an employer would be required to report such a thing, particularly if there was no evidence that any child had been harmed

The photograph is evidence of the sexual abuse of a child --- the child in the photograph.

Its production is a criminal act. Its distribution is a criminal act. Its possesion is a criminal act. This is basic.

Re:Is that how that works?

[hairyfeet]

Well I have a friend that works in the state crime lab on this very subject and he says many they bust (and the prosecutors give insanely huge sentences to) are what he calls "social retards" that frankly aren't a threat to anyone, young or old. One they busted hadn't even left his home since 1997, and when touched would freak and screech like a wounded animal. they ended up having to tranq him to get him out the home. he got 65 years BTW thanks to the several thousand CP pics he had.

The way he explained it to me was that these social retards don't interact with ANYBODY if they can help it, instead they live their entire "life" if you want to call it that, on their machines looking at porn. And just like a junkie who needs a larger fix to keep his habit these retards will need worse and worse porn to keep being able to even get it up. He said the porn they find ALWAYS follows a set pattern as well. First it is straight, then straight fetish (stockings, anal, gangbang, etc) followed by trannies, then B&D/S&M, then finally bestiality and CP. He also said you will find literally pounds and pounds of porn, but its all the same shit that has been floating around the net since the days of bulletin boards.

So just from what he has seen I'd say there is your proof there are plenty that can have a fantasy and not act on it, hell you could have put "tranq boy" into a room with a naked 9 year old and he could have curled up into a ball in the corner and screeched. I agree with him that the police would be a better use if they simply got shrinks for the social retards and instead focus manpower on the scum that actually hunt kids, but sadly the prosecutors want big busts as those make big headlines and they don't get big busts when it comes to actual child rapists as it can takes sometimes years to track them down. Sadly I doubt this will ever change as nobody has the guts to say anything that could come out as "being soft on CP" so they'll just waste resources chasing retards while the real hunter scum won't get busted unless their victims come forward.

Re:Is that how that works?

[artor3]

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.

Re:Is that how that works?

[EdIII]

I never disputed that it was illegal under the current laws. Just the throwing it all into one category is bullshit.

It's perfectly normal to be attracted to 16-18 year old girls sexually when they are fully developed young women. That's biology. Sentencing a 21 year old man to prison time for having a 17 year girl friend and possessing naked pictures of her is just retarded.

My point was in making the distinction of what is a biological motivation to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex (or same) and being sexually attracted towards children.

It's different, and the law says they are the same. If am I going to be part of sentencing a man (or woman) to prison for "child" porn, it had better damn well be children and not some sexually active 16 year old girl actively seeking sexual partners. If it is a 16 year old boy, actively seeking sexual partners is a given 99.9999% of the time.

So if I find some pictures on a guys computer at work where it's possible that it might be some high school cheerleaders I would probably just ignore it. 7 year old girls, or worse boys? I am going to report that because I do consider him a threat to children and needing of psychological evaluation. Prison time is a bit harsh for simple possession, but I am certainly not going to be silent about it.

Re:Is that how that works?

[domatic]

Any child porn with live actors IS documentation of abuse. Anyone who has it is fueling that abuse. It isn't something you just let go.

I don't agree with hounding people because of nasty cartoons with children but the real thing is another beast altogether. Kids can't give consent. Servicing the market for it is a crime. Being a part of the market for it is a crime.

And anyhoo this creepazoid wasn't just getting his jollies from horrible pix....

Re:Is that how that works?

[BrokenHalo]

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?

Re:Is that how that works?

[EdIII]

I guess it isn't. It was a personal opinion, and I have to admit it is a double standard.

Re:Is that how that works?

[cheekyjohnson]

Anyone who has it is fueling that abuse.

That's probably only true if they bought it. If they silently obtain it from elsewhere (the producers don't even know about it), then I don't see how that is.

Re:Is that how that works?

[msobkow]

Whoa, Nellie. Small difference between looking and fantasizing, huge difference between fantasizing and doing.

Consider this: It is not the consumption of illicit drugs that is illegal, but the mere possession of them.

Possession of child pornography is no different than actual child abuse in my books, because the abusive images came from somewhere and by collecting them, you are providing the "customer demand" for more abuse of children.

Any organization has a responsibility to report child pornography and child abuse. But the church still has this bizarre idea that they're above the law and can deal with the issue "internally". Even the First Nations with their tribal councils don't try to shield molestors or abusers around here, and they're about as militant as you can get about meting out justice through their system instead of the courts.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Elbereth]

Naked photographs are not obscene.

There are (controversial) photographers who have made a career out of publishing naked pictures of children and teens. Some of them are highly respected, and some of them are, well, a bit less highly respected.

Check out Larry Clark for an example of possibly the most controversial photographer/director of our time. He's influential and talented, but some people call his work borderline child pornography. Despite it, he's been busy since the 60s, and -- to my knowledge -- never been charged with breaking any obscenity laws. He prefers to document the world as it truly is, not as it "should be". Thus, children are depicting engaging in anti-social, self-destructive, and/or sexual activities. Some people find it fascinating, some people find it disturbing, some people find it obscene, and some people find it a turn-on.

Also, see Virgin Killer for an arguably even more controversial photograph. The article might be censored in your country, however.

Re:Is that how that works?

[rohan972]

I have never had a fantasy about raping a woman. Ever.

As a man, this doesn't make me feel any safer around you.

Re:Is that how that works?

[EdIII]

Yeah. Uh huh.

My responsibility runs a little bit higher. Silly me, I don't have a supervisor. What I am concerned about is hundreds of jobs that depend on me doing my job.

Sorry, that law enforcement is such a cluster fuck of stupidity, corruption, and ineptitude. That's not my fault.

My fears about them coming in and taking everything down are well, well, well justified. So I will still perform my own investigation before risking having the company destroyed, because there is one thing I know for certain....... the cops don't give two shits about the hundreds of employees while I do. They won't care when they take all the equipment and put those hundreds of employees out of a job.

The greatest liability to the company is the equipment seizure. Depending on just how much they take and where, and the FBI has jurisdiction in every state to do it, I am not sure the company could recover from it.

So when I make my decision, I am forced to factor in the fate of every employee. So despite what you said, I am going to be certain before I do anything.

So keep your judgement to yourself and don't say I am not acting professionally, because I am. What I am not doing is acting selfishly.

Maybe if law enforcement was more reasonable and not associated with the two tons of horror stories and Patriot Act bullshit people like me would not have reason to fear them coming and doing what they have done many times in the past to other companies.

Think about that for a minute.

P.S - If I was certain that the police would come in and perform their forensics in the system while maintaining uptime, and even collecting more evidence over time in a cooperative fashion, I would jump at in a second. Unfortunately, we live in a world ruled by fucking morons who don't know the first thing about technology and go rampaging through infrastructure like a raging bull unless you have really really influential connections and strong legal defenses to make them think twice.

P.S - My job, as the highest IT professional in the company, is keeping the technology we have working so other employees can do theirs. That's the job. Destroying the infrastructure in a hasty irresponsible manner is not acting professionally.

Re:Is that how that works?

[daemonenwind]

The Bible says, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:28.

I don't think it's a big leap to apply this teaching to looking at kiddie porn.
Sounds like it's time for some bishops to (re)read the guidebook.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Artifakt]

because the abusive images came from somewhere and by collecting them, you are providing the "customer demand" for more abuse of children.

More specifically than the general principle of demand, when it comes to child porn, there are boards and servers where people must provide some new content to get access to an inner core of photos or video showing the most explicitly pornographic images. To get new content to swap for access, the visitor just about has to commit the actual acts necessary to create new child porn. While I can imagine cases where somebody photographs a simulated rape to access rape porn, or photographs a person over the age of consent to gain access to images of, say, 15-16 year olds, some of these sites, when raided by the FBI, were specifically insisting on penetration images, obviously pre-pubescent children, and other such rules where there's simply no way the original act was not criminal.

Re:Is that how that works?

[sjames]

That's probably only true if they bought it. If they silently obtain it from elsewhere (the producers don't even know about it), then I don't see how that is.

According to the *IAA, the latter people are doing the "industry" irreperable harm and will eventually kill it.

Re:Is that how that works?

[houghi]

Take it one step further. Do you like scary movies? Then you must be some lunatic mass murderer and must receive the death penalty.
I would say that everybody who ever enjoyed a horror movie should be shot as they are a danger to society.
Next will be the people who ever laughed at a racist joke.

Re:Is that how that works?

[EdIII]

Two Words:

Jury Nullification

A law is not inherently just, ethical, logical, rational, etc. When a law is clearly wrong, or being applied wrongly, it is the civic duty of any citizen to not support it, and when opportunity provides for it, participate in jury nullification.

Re:Is that how that works?

[madprof]

Ignoring the specific question of whether the person in the story is guilty...

How can you morally have a problem with the law asking you to report kiddie porn on someone's computer? When you see someone committing a crime like this, what *should* you do? It's not like seeing your friend going 5mph over the speed limit.

You shouldn't say "this person I found with kiddie porn has not abused any kids that I know of so hey their kiddie porn is probably not worth the attention of authorities" because you have no idea when they might act out their fantasies for real. You have no idea if they have already done so as you're not clairvoyant.

We're not discussing whether a 15-year old videoing herself on her phone and texting her boyfriend is kiddie porn, or whether some guy cracking one off over a downloaded picture is direct abuse of that kid. Those are separate issues.

Re:Is that how that works?

[TheLink]

Naked and nonnaked nonobscene pictures of women can still turn many people on.

So my guess is normal pictures of children would be able to turn pedophiles on too.

As the not reporting thing, I wonder what would happen if the cops start arresting "their own" for committing crimes without needing external complaints/reports and also arresting cops for not reporting on cops that commit crimes. :)

Re:Is that how that works?

[julesh]

That's probably only true if they bought it. If they silently obtain it from elsewhere (the producers don't even know about it), then I don't see how that is.

According to the *IAA, the latter people are doing the "industry" irreperable harm and will eventually kill it.

Good point. We should all pirate as much kiddie porn as we can, because doing so will eventually kill the kiddie porn industry...

Re:Is that how that works?

[icebraining]

(...) because it turns out, it usually does.

Where did you heard that?

According to a report I've read, at least where I live the vast majority of pedophiles never act. In fact, some said (anonymized, of course) that doing so would be something like destroying a sacred place.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Vegemeister]

I am wholeheartedly behind punitive incarceration and the removal of said "person" from society for the remainder of their sad, little life.

All because that ""person"" looked at a picture. You, sir, are seriously fucked up.

Re:Is that how that works?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not enough though, to just say these people are harmless and a waste of police time and send them back to their basements to play with their porn collections. Whatever the effect on society, it's not good for them to get caught up in the more miserable end of society's output without any of the benefits and safeguards that full social integration provides.

In short, these retards should be in care.

It's also a timely reminder that the porn industry is built on exploitation, not just of it's workforce but also of it's consumers.

Re:Is that how that works?

[bjourne]

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.

There is no data supporting that theory at all. When it comes to other genres of porn, there are millions of viewers getting turned on by something they never would nor will act out in real life.

Re:Is that how that works?

[rtfa-troll]

I am not even sure why this is on slashdot. Except to fuel the Hate towards Catholics.

There is a quite specific problem here. The Bishop involved was actually attempting to destroy evidence by giving a laptop containing the photos back to the family of the priest. Destruction of this kind of evidence is is an interesting and important IT story whatever the organisation.

It is deeply, very disturbing that people like you are coming here and, instead of saying "something is wrong in the Catholic church, this stuff happens too often" you are picking on random uninvolved groups such as atheists and protestants (I guess muslims were too obvious??) as a way of deflecting this responsibility.

Far more disturbing is the idea that you think that having confessed is sufficient and they should then just be allowed to "go on" with child abuse. If there was a requirement to make restitution and to report for psychological testing and treatment then this might be merely acceptable insanity. However, it's clear from the article that the priest did not just store photos, but also acted in an inappropriate way. This means that there needs to be investigation and failure to do so shows a complete disregard for the safety of the local children.

If you want to look at who's causing problems for the Catholic church; go find a mirror. There are plenty of other people in the church who would be very happy if people like you could just recognise your failure and help them to clean up the situation a bit.

Re:Is that how that works?

[vadim_t]

Catholics seem to be convinced that religion makes them better people, and that without religion there is no morality.

I in turn, take delight in pointing out how the Church, which by that logic should be a paragon of virtue when compared to the rest of the society, is actually behaving as a force of evil. Not just by accident, but entirely intentionally, with policies that protect criminals, and obstruct investigations, handed down from the highest positions in the organization.

You don't get to have it both ways. If you're going to claim that religion is a way to morality, it better be. Otherwise be ready to be mercilessly criticised when that fails to hold up.

Sex abuse doesn't know any boundaries and exist everywhere.

True. But the church is special in being aware of it and trying to hide it and obstruct investigations. That is rightfully denounced.

The reason the church kept it a secret was because of their doctrine of forgiveness and a verry recent conclusion that these people who do sex crimes is actually an illness. So if the priest confessed of his sin the church gives him a clean bill of health and let's them go on. Not because of a plot but because they believe if you confess your sins god will forgive you of those sins, and the policy that the priest who does the confession will not tell anyone else, no matter what. Now you can argue this doctrine, however it isn't part of a coverup it is just following their beliefs.

That's a load of bullshit. In neither the US, UK, nor Ireland does the church make the law. If the law says you have to report it, you have to report it regardless of what your religion says.

Additionally, regardless of any law, this is plain immoral, as it causes great harm to the victims in exchange to protecting a few people that don't deserve it.

Re:Is that how that works?

[hairyfeet]

Oh bullshit. You think a guy that fucks 8 year olds is gonna go "Oh well, nobody will pay me so I'll let little Suzy go" horseshit. I asked my friend from his experience busting these scum how it works and he broke it down for me and in ALL of it? Money didn't mean shit except long AFTER the fact.

1.-Child rapist meets other child rapists in backroom bulletin board. The way they have this thing set up it is damned near impossible for cops to get in BTW, as the entrance fee is video of you raping a kid with an object THEY tell you to insert in the video and you have X amount of time, not enough to Hollywood it and these freaks have all the stuff floating around the net. 2.-Rapists begin exchanging encrypted DVDs through mail. One of them digitizes the faces out if they haven't already been done. Here is where they fuck up as seeing the kid's face gets them off so they NEVER digitize over the kid's face, the most they do is have her/him wear a mask. 3.-Someone in the group uploads it to one of the backroom sites and HERE is where those that sell CP get it. There are a few that "rent" kids in third world countries for filming, but that is rare, mostly it is gotten from these backroom sites. 4.-Video then hits P2P and HERE is where the retards get it.

Notice how money didn't play shit in this exchange? According to my friend while there are sites in third world countries making money off this shit they are exploiting what is already out there and the retards almost never spend a dime, its all P2P and crap they get off back alley sites. He says he sees the same CP stuff day after day after day and some of it is as old as the 1960s, it has just been passed around and around. The few new ones they find on social retards are from the sites I mentioned above where a REAL rapist has loaded up his video for BRAGGING rights NOT for pay. For these guys its "look what I've got!" not "how much will you pay me?" which is why he said tracking these guys down is a bitch. Money leaves a pretty big trail to follow, anon uploads? Not so much.

So please spare us the same tired old meme they used for alcohol and drugs before it, as like in those cases its bullshit.

mixed feelings

[roc97007]

I was ambivalent about this at first, but on reflection I think this is a good thing. It helps break up the conspiracy of silence (due to not wanting to embarrass the order) that can shield a molester for years.

Re:mixed feelings

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

If it is covering up molestation, then yes; but it is covering up (more accurately, not reporting) possession of child pornography. It seems like the church should not have to report possession of child pornography, but that they should take reasonable in-house steps to limit any potential detriment to young people that that possession might signal. Maybe the particular priest is told not to be alone with a single child, for example, and is disciplined in-house.

If it were covering up molestation--particularly ongoing molestation--then someone should go to jail for it.

I am not comfortable with the idea of criminalizing a person who doesn't report a colleague, except in certain situations. You might fire them (in a publicly-held corporation, for example). But particularly where there is no ongoing harm, and where the person is not a law enforcement official or perhaps officer of the court, it does not seem helpful to require people to report.

Actually, it may disincentivize witnesses later--if they had a duty to report something, they will refuse to testify as to what was occurring because that would be incriminating themselves.

Re:mixed feelings

[geekoid]

Picture of child pornography come from somewhere.

Plus he also had kids search is pockets for candy; which is pretty damning.

  "I am not comfortable with the idea of criminalizing a person who doesn't report a colleague, except in certain situations. "
So endangered children aren't the exception?

Add to all that, it's a misdemeanor.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Pretty Terrible Story

[thepainguy]

The parishoners knew for months, if not years, that something strange was going on, but the diocese refused to do anything. There's a letter out there that the principle sent to the Bishop that's quite damning (and that the bishop supposedly never even read).

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/crime/a-newly-released-letter-by-snap-shows-that-parents-were-concerned-about-father-shawn-ratigan

The church still doesn't appear to be taking this stuff seriously and parents should be concerned.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[jmcnally]

Why is this a slashdot story? There are plenty of forums for this terrible story.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[couchslug]

Here's what that typical church reaction can get you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Geoghan

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[thepainguy]

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).

Re:Pretty Terrible Story

[bledri]

If only it were so benign. It's actually a case of sabotage and infiltration of the Church by Satanists and Freemasons. ...

Are you implying that the child molesters are not "real Catholic Priests," but rather Satanists and Freemasons that have specifically infiltrated the church? Seems a bit unlikely. A more likely explanation is that it's not "normal" for an 18 year-old male to choose a life of celibacy and some of the people that do so may actually have issues with their sexual impulses and may decide that serving God and abstaining from sex completely might be best. Until one day, they don't control the urges and then the church covers it up because we can't have people realizing that priests are just fallible people and not some sort of magical God conduit.

The Church will heal only once it acknowledges ...

... that it's all based on the writings and traditions of humans, not the divine word of God.

Re:Slashdot has outdone itself.

[FooAtWFU]

This post is flamebait, but I'll respond in case a wider audience is interested in the question:

How dare you or any modern man defend superstition, let alone Catholicism?

Idunno. There's this whole "freedom of thought" and "tolerance" sort of thing going on, and it seems to have worked rather well for society over the past few centuries. If you don't defend the unpopular, you just end up with mob rule. You don't want mob rule; it would be a real pity if we threw away the notion of tolerance and later rational thought landed on the wrong side of public opinion. Also working out rather well: "innocent until proven guilty". And from the bad ideas file: "guilt by association" and "people who don't agree with me are inhuman scum".

In any event, the problem really isn't that the typical Catholic priests is a child molestor. The problem is that child molestors actively seek positions of trust and authority to perpetrate their crimes and the church has been inadequate in its response. Before you exercise your prejudice, think of the children - your prejudice may hide the real danger.

Brain washing

[deatypoo]

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.

Re:Brain washing

[Beeftopia]

If they were consenting adults, then perhaps.

If they were children who could not give informed consent, then you start to understand the depth of the problem.

Re:Brain washing

[moderatorrater]

The reason that it's a criminal law is because there's damage done to society as a whole. By your line of reasoning murderers would never have to do any jail time.

Re:Brain washing

[J'raxis]

Essentially, yes. Justice should be about making the victims whole, not placating some abstraction. Restorative justice.

"I GOTCHYA!"

[idbeholda]

Said the bishop to the choir boy.

Wait a minute.

[Lord Kano]

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

Different perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

For several years, I was pastor of a small Baptist church (on a part-time basis.)

A few weeks after I started, the flakiest woman in the congregation told me about how the old pastor was a child molester, and nobody would do anything about it, so finally she took matters into her own hands by leaving a letter on the pulpit to make him resign. Didn't know what to think (at the time, didn't know she was the church flake) so I kind of "hmm'd" and nodded and didn't say much. Stayed there for several years, and she decided she didn't like me because I didn't preach from the King James Version and I tended to mention -- God help us -- movies from the pulpit. Watching them was fine, but mentioning them from the pulpit was sacrilege. One Sunday, I found an anonymous letter in the pulpit accusing me of being a child molester. I wasn't about to be run out of the place by this woman, so I called a meeting of the deacons and we dealt with it as a matter of church discipline. She repented and it was, I think, a growth experience for her. I ultimately left the church because my wife left me (long story) but I'm still on good terms with the people there. (I'm now an Anglican, by the way, because I couldn't stand what passes for theological discourse in the Southern Baptist Convention anymore.)

The point? Not every allegation of clergy sexual abuse is true. Not every accuser is lily white innocent. One of the interesting things about operating a church and being in the ministry is that you have to deal with people who may not always be reliable, because those are the people who need you the most. That's why the Bible says that you shouldn't entertain an accusation against an "elder" (i.e. a priest -- Greek presbyteros) without two or three witnesses.

That's not to say that the Roman Catholic church doesn't have a problem with how they handle genuine clerical abuse. They do. And, if what is being said in the article even resembles the truth, the Bishop in this case screwed up big time and deserves to be deposed. But I don't remotely believe some of the numbers that are bandied about regarding RC sexual abuse. Some of the people who make allegations were genuinely abused, but I suspect that at least as many have an axe to grind with the church or are looking for a cash payout.

Okay, said my piece.

Re:Different perspective...

[couchslug]

"But I don't remotely believe some of the numbers that are bandied about regarding RC sexual abuse.But I don't remotely believe some of the numbers that are bandied about regarding RC sexual abuse."

How about believing the actual settlements the RCC paid out when they can afford armies of lawyers to fight an injust accusation?

The problem with "mandated reporting"

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a lot of people advocating the merits of "mandated reporting," in various forms. The problem with mandated reporting is that, if you are someone who is dealing with a problem, it means you can't seek help from anyone.

I had a friend who was a single father, and he had a problem with controlling his temper with his son. It was not so bad that his son was in danger -- he was just stressed out and needed someone to talk to before it got that bad. But he had a truly evil ex-wife waiting in the wings for any excuse to take the son away from him and make sure that he never saw his son again. My friend couldn't afford to take any chances. He couldn't talk honestly to a counselor, because if he did the counselor might decide he had to report it -- and as soon as the phone call was made my friend's ex-wife would find out and legal action (that my friend couldn't afford) would ensue. And going to the ex-wife wouldn't be better for the kids for reasons too complicated to explain. Suffice it to say that she's pretty much a sociopath. He couldn't talk to most friends, because they might report him too. He couldn't talk to an attorney, because he couldn't afford one. Finally, he talked to a pastor, who is not (in Virginia) a mandated reporter. Fortunately, the pastor had taken a lot of counseling classes in seminary and was able to help him. But ... this situation went on for years after my friend knew he needed help. And in a lot of states pastors are mandated reporters.

Then what does the marginal "offender," who just needs some help without the risk, do? Mandated reporting is like zero-tolerance laws. It's built on the assumption that good rules are better than good people. And that's just not the case.

Re:The problem with "mandated reporting"

[Aighearach]

If it is bad enough that he can't talk to friends, maybe he is minimizing how bad it is when he talks to you.

US Bishop Charged For Not Reporting Priest's Child

[Anachragnome]

"US Bishop Charged For Not Reporting Priest's Child Porn To Police"

I wonder how much they charged him.

Signed,
Obviously Oblivious

70 years ago, in Europe ....

[lolococo]

... you could get arrested - or even executed - for not reporting jews to the local gestapo. Is this the same mindset I can see emerging here? Please, convince me it isn't.

Re:citation please

[hebertrich]

A many religious orders here in Quebec have had histories and run ins for what they did.
It's impact is very deep here.It partially explains why the churches are now empty.
We stopped beleiving watching them act, abuse of their power , abused the most vulnerable.
And they were preaching to us ! .. How dare they ? We came to despise them. As a whole for
they acted together and all knew what was happening. I know . i was in a private school run by " brothers " where abuse took place.
They were despicable low lifes. Preaching one , doing the other . How could we beleive in their God ?
IT's a bunch of rubbish that was used to exert control over people. We revolted , became free thinkers and now free from
their lies worked hard at making a better society.

Free yourselves.

Jury nullification is absent in a just society

[davidwr]

When a law is clearly wrong, or being applied wrongly, it is the civic duty of any citizen to not support it, and when opportunity provides for it, participate in jury nullification.

In jurisdictions where prosecutors care about justice instead of getting another notch on their belt, unjust laws are never enforced and laws which can be applied unjustly aren't.

In other words:

1) Jury nullification, when properly applied, is a sign that the prosecution needs to be retrained or replaced, and

2) In a just society, jury nullification will never happen because it will never need to happen.