US Bishop Charged For Not Reporting Priest's Child Porn To Police 430
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."
Is that how that works? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [mo.gov].
PP 4 reads:
Does possession of child porn constitute "reasonable cause to suspect"?
Re:Is that how that works? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I would certainly consider that "harm."
How? He looked at them, yes, but what happened? As far as I know, nothing happened or resulted from that. The so-called "victim" probably doesn't even know if someone looked at it (how they got the pictures is another matter, I think).
Re: (Score:3)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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 --
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 atheis
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 suspici
Re: (Score:2)
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,
If the pornography is photos or videos of real live children (as opposed to drawings/art/renders) then the argument can be and has been made that children have been materially harmed. Not only were they abused in the taking of the photos, but the photos of them -- doubtless embarrassing, certainly a painful remembrance of what happened to them -- still exist
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
In our legal system, possession of child porn is considered to make the possessor culpable for the abuse of the child.
Personally, I think it's an easy way for officials to look like they are "doing something" about a particularly heinous problem while the real child abusers may go completely free. We can probably catch hundreds of people who view such pornographic images, but the people who were actually physically involved in creating the images are not apprehended all that often. (It does happen, though
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of the very few crimes where I do not support rehabilitation or believe in redemption. I don't believe in the death penalty except in the most extreme of circumstances (this is not one). However in the cas
Re: (Score:2)
this "person" is creating demand.
But they're not abusing the children themselves, and the "damage" they cause is probably small (there probably needs to be quite a few of them for it to even be sustainable).
And they're not necessarily even supporting the producers at all (they could get it elsewhere, unknowingly to the producer).
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
The law says "has been" as well as "may be". Someone had to create the CP. That means someone, somewhere has already sexually abused a child. The possessor of the CP is not relevant as far as reporting it's existence, really.
Now, there are still corner cases. It is possible he was only in possession of material created without a child such as digital renderings or drawings (which are still illegal in many jurisdictions) or photography for medical or other legitimate purposes (such as a parent photograph
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about Missouri, but according to a U.S. Dept of Justice prosecutor who taught I class I took, yes, if you discover CP, you are required to report it. Always. We were, in fact, told that failure to report was itself a crime. Happily, it's not something I ever stumbled across in any of the investigations I've done, but there's no doubt in my mind that if I had, I'd be making the call.
Re:Is that how that works? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fantasizing about some celebrity, or being in Star Trek, or on the game grid in Tron is one thing. Killing or harming people is another.
The hands down #1 fantasy of both genders is rape. Does that come under harm? Does it make everyone a rapist?
Re: (Score:2)
What?????
That is the #1 fantasy????
I have never had a fantasy about raping a woman. Ever.
Citation Puhleeeze.
Re:Is that how that works? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
I don't work for the FBI or anything studying serial killers but I don't think we need a psych major here to tell you that certain fantasies tended to be acted upon more than others.
You might not need to be a psych major, but I will ask for some proof of this. I don't see why that would be (and even if a seemingly "reasonable" explanation is given, I'd still like some proof). Now we just need to read everyone's minds, find out who fantasizes about what, and then try to determine which fantasies are acted out more often than others...
Re: (Score:2)
What part about the "associated with more mental problems" did you miss?
Not all fantasies are equal. The ones involving harm and abuse of children usually go hand in hand with deeper pathology.
Strong negative consequences can be mitigated by a deep desire motivated by mental problems. The death penalty is pretty damned strong as a deterrent right? Then how come serial killers can seemingly get over it? When interviewed they always seem to indicate that they are driven and powerless to stop themselves.
Wh
Re:Is that how that works? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
But that's not the reason why it should be illegal. The problem isn't specifically with looking at child porn, or that by doing so they might be motivated to act on their desires, but that they are maintaining the industry. Someone, somewhere had to produce the images, and that does cause a very real harm to someone. By eliminating the consumers at the bottom, you at least in part eliminate the need for the producers at the top.
It's the same reason for why buying body parts is illegal. You getting the p
Re: (Score:3)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
I guess it isn't. It was a personal opinion, and I have to admit it is a double standard.
Re: (Score:3)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I never said it should be criminalized, only that the person should be receiving psychological evaluation immediately. I also *never* indicated that thoughts or fantasies should be criminalized at all.
There is a big difference, huge difference, about fantasizing about pulling off some heist, or punching your boss, and killing/raping/torturing people.
Not all fantasies are equal. If you go into an ER and answer a question about suicidal thoughts or fantasies the wrong way.... boy let me tell you... it gets p
Re: (Score:2)
Not all fantasies are equal.
According to you, at least. But that is likely subjective.
Re: (Score:3)
(...) 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: (Score:2)
Everyone fantasizes about breaking the law from time to time; few people act on those impulses.
Actually, people quite frequently break the law... it's kind of part of the reason for search warrants, and why police states end up being able to arbitrarily label anyone a criminal. I think your idea of "fantasizing does not result in actually breaking the law" is suffering from selective memory biases that humans have. You recall the times where you fantasize yet don't break the law more readily than you recall when you fantasize and then do break the law. Likely thinking most of the time that you broke
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Wow, no, dude. If I found undeniable child porn (not a kid in the bath or something likely to be innocent), I'd stop what I was doing, call the cops, then call my boss. I'm not going to run the risk of having some kiddy-diddler get off (no pun intended) because he could make a case that I'd tampered with the evidence or simply that the evidence had been mishandled. Let the cops do their forensic analysis using tools and methods that are accepted in the relevant court(s).
Re: (Score:2)
While you have a point, I would still determine if company resources were simply being used as a dump, or if the employee was actively involved.
I don't trust cops, and I trust the FBI even less. Many companies I have worked for can't take the hit, and you just have no idea if the cops are going to seize all your equipment, specific equipment, etc.
So, yes, I could be absolutely safe and secure in the knowledge that responsibility was entirely in the hands of the authorities, but at a very severe risk of comp
Re: (Score:2)
While you have a point, I would still determine if company resources were simply being used as a dump, or if the employee was actively involved.
I don't trust cops, and I trust the FBI even less. Many companies I have worked for can't take the hit, and you just have no idea if the cops are going to seize all your equipment, specific equipment, etc.
Wow. You just gave an attorney the basis for the defense. Prior to calling the police you took it upon yourself to go through the evidence, possibly tainting it, wrecking key log entries, or even planting evidence. Perhaps you had a little argument with the defendant a few days before? You had a reason to frame him. Also, since you represent "the company" you also have exposed them to liability in the process and you've jeopardized your job. Not doing the right thing just to avoid equipment seizure
Re:Is that how that works? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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.
mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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--particul
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The picture did come from somewhere--which goes to the producer, not the consumer. Unless the consumer is paying for it.
The searching pockets for candy is different; I did not see that bit.
Endangered children *ARE* one of the exceptions, hence "covering up molestation--particularly ongoing molestation." I am not convinced that possession of child pornography by an adult endangers children. If there is any good evidence on the topic, I might chance my mind--but for obvious reasons, it's not the kind of st
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't stuff you can find on USENET anymore. These... creatures... have to seek out distributors of this vile muck. They either supply their own in exchange in a tit-for-tat system, or they pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having child porn is cause for a more thorough investigation, especially if the particular individual in possession is engaged in other odd behaviors with regards to children. And that's the basis for indicting the bishop. Holding onto that knowledge for that many months greatly weakens the police's opportunity to investigate any crimes which might have occurred on top of the apparent possession of child pornography.
The only concern I have is that there is still no mens rea requirement for possession of chi
Re: (Score:2)
And misdemeanor criminalization is still criminalization.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what do you think the penalty should be for turning a blind eye to a possible pedophile that has regular close contact with children? And that's the crux of the matter, assuming the reports are accurate, the bishop ultimately is a part of a conspiracy to engage in sex crimes against children.
Re: (Score:2)
I think without evidence I am not willing to call someone a "possible pedophile" for possession alone. Everyone is a possible pedophile. Labelling anyone a possible pedophile, however, is usually fearmongering. There is also the issue that I am not sure what age we are talking about--I have far less of a problem if we're talking about seventeen-year-olds than I do if we're talking about eight-year-olds.
As I said, the pockets issue raises serious concerns.
It is also not clear that the person "turned a bli
Re: (Score:2)
You've pretty much summed up my misgivings, which is why I was conflicted. But there's been so much press about child molestation in the church, and they've taken so much flack for it -- justifiably so in my opinion -- that to not report child porn given the larger circumstances is absolutely inexcusable.
If they had a duty to report something, they should have reported it. If they decide not to, they will have to abide by the consequences of that decision, just like we must abide by the consequences of a
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty Terrible Story (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/crime/a-newly-released-letter-by-snap-shows-that-parents-were-concerned-about-father-shawn-ratigan [nbcactionnews.com]
The church still doesn't appear to be taking this stuff seriously and parents should be concerned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pretty Terrible Story (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a large part of it, but if you read up on the history of the Catholic Church, particularly the stuff just leading up to the Reformation, it's not exactly news that the Catholic Church considers itself to be above the law.
What concerns me is when the Pope uses these incidents to drive a homophobic message rather than taking meaningful action to ensure that subordinates understand that cover ups are not to be tolerated in the Church.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pretty Terrible Story (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Here's what that typical church reaction can get you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Geoghan [wikipedia.org]
Some payout #s for the denialists. (Score:2)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/25/christian-brothers-abuse-payout [guardian.co.uk]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23521616/ns/us_news-faith/t/catholic-sex-abuse-payouts-top-million/ [msn.com]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557479/Roman-Catholic-Church-agrees-sexual-abuse-payout.html [telegraph.co.uk]
http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/08/18/clergy-abuse-payouts-pushing-dublin-archdiocese-toward-bankruptcy/ [nationalpost.com]
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Catholic+Church+seeks+limit+abuse+payouts+Germany/3605154/story.html [montrealgazette.com]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wor [guardian.co.uk]
SMBC (Score:2)
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2234#comic [smbc-comics.com]
And yet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dislike MS as much as anybody, but I think suggesting that MS would cover up allegations of sexual abuse or serial killing by an employee to be a bit far fetched even for slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
1) There are 100's of serial killers/child molesters. Worse, a number of them are becoming managers, VPs, and even possibly the CEO. 2) The employee's boss KNOWS about this killing/molester and is ACTIVELY helping to cover it up.
3) All of the bosses up the chain KNOW that this is going on are also actively helping to cover it up.
4) Gates and Balmer are not just working together to prevent the information from getting out, but then are actually doing all that they can
Brain washing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If they were children who could not give informed consent, then you start to understand the depth of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
There shouldn't be 'out of court' settlements for rape. Simple as that.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? If the victim is satisfied with the outcome, why should you or the courts or anyone else have any input on the situation?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Essentially, yes. Justice should be about making the victims whole, not placating some abstraction. Restorative justice [wikimedia.org].
"I GOTCHYA!" (Score:2)
Wait a minute. (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
"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" (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:3)
"US Bishop Charged For Not Reporting Priest's Child Porn To Police"
I wonder how much they charged him.
Signed,
Obviously Oblivious
Re:Slashdot has outdone itself. (Score:4, Insightful)
This post is flamebait, but I'll respond in case a wider audience is interested in the question:
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The response has been documented to have AGGRAVATED the problem, and continued over decades.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/25/christian-brothers-abuse-payout [guardian.co.uk] [guardian.co.uk]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23521616/ns/us_news-faith/t/catholic-sex-abuse-payouts-top-million/ [msn.com] [msn.com]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557479/Roman-Catholic-Church-agrees-sexual-abuse-payout.html [telegraph.co.uk] [telegraph.co.uk]
http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/08/18/clergy-abuse-payouts-pushing-dublin-archdiocese-toward-bankrup [nationalpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's all well and good when you are believing the right things. But if you are believing the *wrong* things, well, we have to stamp it out, shout you down, or treat you like a moron! We can't have you going around having independent
Re: (Score:2)
Inadequate in it's response?
Could that be the understatement of the year?
It's response at every turn has been to protect itself and the abusers. That's not inadequate, that's evil. Fuck the catholic church and the pope.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is the poster -1?
Whenever someone makes a claim that a link is goatse, the admin should check it out, and then mod it +1 gabajillion.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is you've got an AC penalty enabled. He's at 0 with no mod history either way here.
That or the loser who modded him down posted afterwards. Check the timestamps, maybe you can figure out who?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Have a few numbers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/25/christian-brothers-abuse-payout [guardian.co.uk] [guardian.co.uk]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23521616/ns/us_news-faith/t/catholic-sex-abuse-payouts-top-million/ [msn.com] [msn.com]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557479/Roman-Catholic-Church-agrees-sexual-abuse-payout.html [telegraph.co.uk] [telegraph.co.uk]
http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/08/18/clergy-abuse-payouts-pushing-dublin-archdiocese-toward-bankruptcy/ [nationalpost.com] [nationalpost.com]
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Catholic+Churc [montrealgazette.com]