17
   

Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class

 
 
firefly
 
  1  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 11:35 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Once more your case is weak..

And your case is non-existent, lamebrain.

Your logic is also deficient as well. Both the Bishop and the priest have already been convicted. That, by you, is a "weak case"?

I don't have a case--the government did, against both the Bishop and the priest. And the government obtained convictions against both of those people--and the Church is not arguing those convictions.

If you had any brains, you'd stop arguing those convictions too, The Church is not on your side with this one, the Bishop violated canon law, as well as civil law, and the priest violated federal law, so who are you defending? People whose actions the Church and the Diocese isn't even defending right now?

.



izzythepush
 
  2  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 11:38 am
@firefly,
BillRM seems to condemn everything the church stands for with the exception of paedophile priests.

No wonder his definition of right and wrong, criminal and licit, makes no sense to the rest of us.
BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 11:39 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Who said the images were all of fully clothed children's crotches? I don't believe they were. At least one photo was an image of an infant's crotch without a diaper. And the priest had hundreds of images--some might have been more sexually explicit than others.


Once more the church had legal opinions that the pictures they knew about was not child porns and they acted in good faith in that light.

So let see they was aware of pictures that while troublesome was not child porn in the opinions of their lawyers and one police officer and there was no complain to them that any child had been abuse.

So what child are they going to be reporting was perhaps being abused by this priest and what child porn are they going to be turning over to the police?

They stop him from being around children and was doing an investigation and when the priest then refused to followed their instructions to keep away from children during the investigation they did contract the police with concerns.

So where did they not act in a correct and proper manner?

firefly
 
  1  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 11:45 am
@BillRM,
The case is over, dumbbell. The Bishop was convicted. He never reported the matter to authorities--even when others in the Diocese urged him to notify the police. Another clergyman finally turned the priest in.

The Bishop violated canon law as well, which is why the Diocese and the Church are not publicly defending his actions.

firefly
 
  1  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 11:50 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
BillRM seems to condemn everything the church stands for with the exception of paedophile priests.

BillRM just can't stop championing pedophiles and child pornographers.
Quote:
No wonder his definition of right and wrong, criminal and licit, makes no sense to the rest of us

Because he thinks like a sociopath and normal people don't. He has no problem with breaking laws, it's all about not getting caught or convicted in his mind.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 11:57 am
@firefly,
The church did in fact reported the matter to the police and the fact that he was on vacation when the new information came in about the priest not obeying the restriction of the church and his second in command did the reporting is not his fault or failure.

The church seems to had acted in good faith this time and you had picked one hell of a weak case to attack the church or the Bishop.

firefly
 
  1  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 12:20 pm
@BillRM,
It was the Bishop's legal and canon responsibility to report what he saw on that computer to the police--as soon as he saw it, not to do his own investigation, or deal with the priest in his own way. And, after 5 months, he still hadn't done that, and, in fact, he never made his mandated report to the police. That another priest finally turned the pedophile child pornographer in, does not absolve the Bishop of failing to fulfill his personal legal and canon obligations.

Who's attacking the Church? The Church isn't defending either the actions of the Bishop or the pedophile priest. Their behaviors violated canon law, meaning the Church doesn't support or approve of the way either of them behaved--they both violated Church law--and both of these people were convicted under civil laws as well.

You must really be brain dead if you can't understand why this Bishop should have been, and was, convicted.

There was an extensive independent investigation into this matter that was commissioned by the Church and headed by a former federal prosecutor--it failed to exonerate the Bishop for his irresponsibility in not fulfilling his mandated obligation to report. So, you're sure as hell not going to accomplish an exoneration of him with your idiotic posts.

It's amazing how you persist in discussing legal issues, and laws, you don't understand, in thread after thread. You really do enjoy making a fool of yourself. And you're too dumb to know when you should shut up.
firefly
 
  1  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 12:52 pm
Quote:
What's next for bishop Robert Finn?
By David Gibson

(RNS) Catholic Bishop Robert W. Finn was found guilty Thursday of failing to tell police about a priest suspected of sexually exploiting children, an unprecedented verdict that is being hailed as a landmark in the effort to bring accountability to the church's hierarchy.

Finn, leader of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph and an outspoken conservative in the American hierarchy, was convicted of a single misdemeanor count for not telling police that one of his priests, the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, had taken hundreds of lewd images of children in Catholic schools and parishes.

But even as he became the first U.S. bishop ever convicted in criminal court for shielding an abusive priest, Finn's standing inside the church appears uncertain, and the subject of intense debate.

Should he stay or should he go? Finn has indicated that he wants to tough it out.

"The Bishop looks forward to continuing to perform his duties, including carrying out the important obligations placed on him by the Court," Finn's spokesman, Jack Smith, said in a statement to Religion News Service on Friday.

Pope Benedict XVI is the only one with the authority to force a bishop from office, and the Vatican said nothing on Friday about Finn.

Meanwhile, the point man on the abuse crisis for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop R. Daniel Conlon of Joliet, Ill., was circumspect about Finn's conviction.

Conlon, who recently acknowledged that the hierarchy's credibility on abuse was "shredded" in part because of cases like Finn's, said that he did not know the details of the trial. He instead stressed that the bishops stood by their policy of reporting all allegations to police and complying with all local laws on reporting.

"Church officials have committed themselves to follow the Charter" — the policies on abuse that the bishops adopted in 2002 — "and are bound by civil and canon law," Conlon said Friday.

But others directly called on Finn to step down.

"For the good of the diocese and the church, I think he should apologize and resign. Then a new bishop can begin the healing process," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a fellow at Georgetown University's Woodstock Theological Center.

"The judge found him guilty," said Reese, a Jesuit priest. "There is no way he can lead the diocese after that."

Nicholas Cafardi, a canon and civil lawyer at the Duquesne Law School in Pittsburgh, said that Finn could be dismissed under canon law. He also noted that in the past year Benedict removed a bishop suspected of financial improprieties and another who suggested that the church debate the issue of allowing women and married priests.

In an email, Cafardi said that in Finn's case it shouldn't come to that.

"The best solution for the Church here … is not a canonical process or even Finn's forced removal," said Cafardi, a former head of the bishops' National Review Board that was established to ensure compliance with their own reforms. "It is that Finn put the good of his diocese above his personal ambitions and his need for power and resign immediately. After this, how can he face his people or his priests?"

Evidence introduced by prosecutors showed that Finn, 59, had also received numerous complaints about Ratigan's behavior over the course of a year, starting in December 2010, and did not tell authorities even after Ratigan attempted suicide.

Ratigan, 46, pleaded guilty last month to federal child pornography charges and is awaiting sentencing.

Thursday's verdict by Jackson County, Mo., Circuit Court Judge John Torrence came at the end of a one-day bench trial. Prosecutors wanted to spare victims the pain of testifying, and the diocese wanted to avoid a lengthy trial that could have exposed further embarrassing details about Finn's record.

Both Finn and the diocese faced two separate misdemeanor counts of failure to report suspected child abuse. Torrence found Finn guilty on one charge, and said there was insufficient evidence to convict on the second. At the request of prosecutors, he then dismissed both counts against the diocese.

Finn could have faced up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine on each charge. Torrence gave Finn a suspended sentence of two years' probation, on condition that he complete the probation period without incident and complies with a series of steps.

Last November, Finn avoided trial on similar charges in another county in the diocese by agreeing to give prosecutors oversight of the diocese's sex abuse reporting procedures in that county.

In the long run, Finn's viability as a bishop may depend on how local Catholics react.

The case has left many of the faithful in the diocese discouraged and furious, and it is not clear Finn can reverse that negativity.

Finn's statement after his conviction carefully pointed to inadequate diocesan "process and procedures" as the reason that Ratigan was not reported to police, and his expression of regret was for policy failures and "for the hurt that these events have caused."

Until this week Finn had vigorously rejected the charges that he had done anything wrong, and had hired a high-priced defense team to make his case. The diocese revealed this week that Finn's legal bills have cost the diocese and its insurers nearly $1.4 million over the past year, and that parishes will have to kick in more money to cover the outlays. Finn and the diocese still face numerous civil suits resulting from the case.

"How can the diocese move forward after all this?" the Rev. Gerald Waris, a retired priest who was pastor of the church where Ratigan last served, told the Kansas City-based National Catholic Reporter. "Most of us who have worked in parishes and continue to work here, we'll have to find a way to rise above it all."

The Vatican does not like to be pressured into taking action, especially when it comes to disciplining a bishop. But the pope is also trying to promote accountability as a solution to the sexual abuse crisis and could be waiting to see how things play out.

Observers note that Finn is 59 and does not have to retire until 75. That could provide time for him to restore his reputation, or the prospect of having Finn as bishop for 15 more years could serve as a spur to Catholics to register their anger now.

"Rome is not immune to public pressure," said Cafardi. "It's now up to the faithful and the clergy of the diocese to come forward."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-09-07/bishop-sex-abuse-coverup/57689558/1
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 01:01 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
It was the Bishop's legal and canon responsibility to report what he saw on that computer to the police--as soon as he saw it, not to do his own investigation


Sorry not true when the church lawyers was telling him that the pictures did not raised to the level of child porn and not one child or parent of a child was making a claim of abuse.

This was a DA who wished his name to appear in the newspapers but under the situation I do not see a moral or even legal failing of the good Bishop even if the DA did get a misdemeanor conviction.

Once more no abuse claims by anyone and no knowledge of child porn pictures as legal experts was telling the Bishop that the pictures the church knew of was not child porn.

This is more of an example of a DA abuse of power then the non reporting of child abuse.

Strange case for you to get on your moral high horse Firefly when there had been many many cases of real and legal failings within the Catholic leadership but this does not appear to be one of those failings.
firefly
 
  1  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 01:29 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
This was a DA who wished his name to appear in the newspaper...I do not see a moral or even legal failing of the good Bishop even if the DA did get a misdemeanor

Idiot, go back and read my last post, about what might happen next for this Bishop wthin the Church. This has nothing to do with a particular D.A. And it's not the first time this Bishop's had a problem with complying with civil laws.
Quote:
Last November, Finn avoided trial on similar charges in another county in the diocese by agreeing to give prosecutors oversight of the diocese's sex abuse reporting procedures in that county.


He may be kicked out of his position as Bishop--he violated canon law, Church law, by failing to make a report to the police and by trying to deal with the situation in his own way. A violation of canon law is very serious in terms of his functioning within the Church, and his ability to remain as a Bishop within the Church.

Part of the internal reform instituted after the child abuse scandal in the Church was to mandate, by canon law, that such matters be reported to the police--and that they should not be deal with by Bishops in their own way. This Bishop clearly violated Church law, quite apart from civil law. And he consequently plunged the Church, as well as the Diocese, into another cover-up scandal, as well as exposing them to civil liability.
Quote:
I do not see a moral or even legal failing of the good Bishop...

Since you are ethically challenged, I wouldn't expect you to.

And, since you seem unable to understand the Bishop's transgressions, in terms of either canon law or civil law, there is no point in continuing to discuss this case with you.

BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 01:37 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
instituted after the child abuse scandal in the Church was to mandate, by canon law, that such matters be reported to the police--and that they should not be deal with by Bishops in their own way


What matters should be reported?

Pictures that a priest had that by the church lawyers was not a crime and no reports by anyone of an act of abuse of a child by the Priest?

So what abused of whom was the Bishop suppose to report?

As far as canon law who but a Catholic would care about canon laws?

If the church wish to deal with the Bishop under their own rules/laws that is fine with me but under the public laws of the society once more I do not see any failing on his part in this situation.

firefly
 
  1  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 01:57 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
I do not see any failing on his part in this situation...

The Bishop received due proces in a court of law, and was defended by a very high-priced defense team, who without a doubt were better able to make a case for him than you are, and he was convicted. The judge found the Bishop did not uphold the law. A judge who, I have no doubt, is better able to understand and interpret the law than you are.

You're not proving the Bishop's "innocence", all you're doing is proving your stupidity and your ignorance of the law.

Since you seem unable to understand the Bishop's transgressions, in terms of either canon law or civil law, there is no point in continuing to discuss this case with you.

I have no doubt that, even if no one reponds to you, you will go on making post, after post, after post, trying to defend this Bishop, by mindlessly repeating the same things over, and over, and over.

The Church is smarter than you are--they're not defending this Bishop's actions. They know he acted inappropriately, and irresponsibly, and illegally, and, in doing so, he's tarnished the Church's reputation and cost them a bundle in legal fees, and who knows how much more he will cost them in possible civil judgments. It will be interesting to see whether he retains his position as Bishop.

BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 02:36 pm
@firefly,
Yes you can not tell me what the hell the Bishop did wrong so you need to fall back on the DA being able to get a misdemeanor conviction and this is from a woman who had stated that we are under no obligation to respect a not guilty verdict of juries in rape trials?

Sorry once more what child repeat what child was the Bishop suppose to report as being an abuse victim of this priest ?

What crime was he suppose to report the priest of being guilty of for that matter given that the pictures that the church knew about was declare by the church lawyers and therefore also officers of the court not to be illegal in nature?

The Bishop acted even those on the surface there was no crime to report in limiting the Priest access to children and begin the process of looking further into the matter.

All in all there are thousands of actions and lack of actions by leaders in the church that you could post on concerning child abuse and cover ups but this does not seem to be one of those cases.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 04:06 pm
@firefly,
DAVID wrote:
On another point, according to what definition of pornografy
were those pictures "pornography" if all depicted people
were fully clothed and not involved in sexual conduct
firefly wrote:
They were child pornography under the federal definition of child pornography.
I do not believe the defense attorney for the priest disputed whether they were, in fact, child porn.
I can 't help but wonder if he was really doing his job.
Counsel 's display of professional expertise was less than dazzling.
Did his client demand of him that he remain inert??




firefly wrote:
Child pornography does not have to show children engaging in sexual conduct.
Sexually explicit photos of children's genitalia can be child porn
Yes, but from the posted information,
we saw that only one picture involved any nudity
and that was agreed to be non-porn (presumably not showing erotic anatomical areas).




firefly wrote:
Who said the images were all of fully clothed children's crotches? I don't believe they were.
Upon my memory, that is in the posted description of the alleged facts.
It shud be set forth hereinabove, if my memory is accurate.
I can 't check it now, as I 'm leaving momentarily to go out to eat.






firefly wrote:
At least one photo was an image of an infant's crotch without a diaper. And the priest
had hundreds of images--some might have been more sexually explicit than others.
I thought that thay were said to have been engaged in their daily endeavors, fully clothed.
IF he really DID have pictures of naked children,
then I withdraw my question on that point.






firefly wrote:
And it's child abuse, and sexual exploitation of a child, to take such photos, even if the child doesn't know the photo is being taken or that it exists. What the child knows does not alter the criminal behavior of the person who takes the photo.
OK; I 'm only trying to follow your reasoning, as posted.
Do u assert that it IS a crime, but that u admit
that if the child never knows of the photography, then he or she is NO worse off???

Do u concede that if such a child never knows
that his or her picture was taken, then he or she is not worse off for it???
I 'm just trying to understand your point.





firefly wrote:
And it likely will not alter this priest's liability in civil suits either.
For COMPENSTORY damages ???
I 'm reminded of the common law criteria for a tortious assault:
being put into fear of an imminent battery;
i.e., knowledge is a necessary element of the tort;
he was not assaulted, if his eyes were closed.
How does he prove compensatory damages??
Maybe u meant punitive damages only??




firefly wrote:
Go argue with the federal government, and not with me,
if you don't agree with the child pornography statutes or how they are prosecuted.
That is not the way that A2K functions.
IF the US Attorney posts here, or maybe if the author of the statute
does so, then I 'll apply your advice. In the meantime (like everyone else)
u can expect to receive questions & comments upon the material that u post.




firefly wrote:
The defense is not disputing the indictment or conviction of the priest
on the production and possession of child pornography charges.
Something strikes me as improper here, out-of-balance; suicide-like.
Does he wanna martyr himself?? For whom? For what ?




firefly wrote:
The case has already been adjudicated, only sentencing remains.
It was not tried; defendant simply committed jurisprudential lemming like suicide.
I wonder what was in his mind.
firefly
 
  2  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 04:42 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
u can expect to receive questions & comments upon the material that u post

And you can expect me to ignore them.

You can look up the specifics of the child pornography charges against the priest if you are that interested in learning about them.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 11:21 pm
@firefly,
DAVID wrote:
u can expect to receive questions & comments upon the material that u post
firefly wrote:
And you can expect me to ignore them.
MY statement was general & universal.
If I drop dead tomorrow, u can STILL "expect to receive questions & comments
upon the material that u post" from anyone else
who reads your posts. U can freely ignore all of them too.

IF u intend to ignore EVERYONE who questions or comments upon your posts,
then u shud re-assess whether it is worth your while to remain in the forum.

Firefly, I remain an innocent, innocuous retired citizen.
My mind is drawn to considerations of liberty and to strict fidelity to logic, mathematical purity and immutability.
I am as harmless as a butterfly, full of courtesy and good will, yet
your long-term posting history toward me suggests
that u have a very un-founded fear of me.
I cannot begin to imagine the REASON for that.

There is NO rationale for that; NONE whatsoever, NO justification,
yet here u write of your intention to "ignore" my posts, as if I had been impolite
(as indeed, other members hereof [with whom u continually correspond] HAVE been).

I desire nothing more than to communicate, in pleasant ways fully accordant with all principles of etiquette,
upon the subject matter of posted threads, and to explore the logic thereof (because it is fun).

I expect a strong denial of any fear
(as, indeed, there never shud have been any in the past,
and shud be none in the future), accompanied by a dramatic declaration
that I exaggerate my effect; so be it. Proceed. Tell me.





firefly wrote:
You can look up the specifics of the child pornography charges against the priest
if you are that interested in learning about them.
In keeping with the established practices of A2K, since its inception,
I am challenging, or simply questioning or commenting upon
your posted allegations. Rational argument is fun.





David
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Sun 9 Sep, 2012 11:42 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
. Rational argument is fun


Firefly is all about winning, which is defined as getting what she wants, and she is not particular about how she gets there. truth and reason are expendable to her in this effort. as you have before pointed out she is capable of very fine reasoning, however her motives are not pure enough where as this matters, or should be exected. not everyone is like you David....time to wake up and smell the coffee.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Mon 10 Sep, 2012 12:41 am
@hawkeye10,
DAVID wrote:
Rational argument is fun
hawkeye10 wrote:
Firefly is all about winning, which is defined as getting what she wants, and she is not particular about how she gets there. truth and reason are expendable to her in this effort. as you have before pointed out she is capable of very fine reasoning, however her motives are not pure enough where as this matters, or should be exected. not everyone is like you David....time to wake up and smell the coffee.
I am not able to execute imperfect mathematics.
In my mind, pie CANNOT equal 3.4; that 'd blow out my personal computer.
I remain acutely aware that we rose to the top of the food chain
by the use of accurate logic and of the products of our minds: competent weapons.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Mon 10 Sep, 2012 12:45 am

I wonder whether the anti-gun liberals
wish that we had left them in the MIDDLE of the food chain, un-armed.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 10 Sep, 2012 12:55 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I remain acutely aware that we rose to the top of the food chain

r u as equally aware that a great many people now consider the well being of cats and dogs or other animals to be superior in importance to the well being of humans??

you sir are so very out of date!
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/09/2025 at 08:44:05