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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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

[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

[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).

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.

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.

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.