The news greets us today that Pope Francis has quickly accepted the resignation of Bishop Robert Finn. The bishop plead guilty a couple of years ago for not reporting a suspected child-abusing priest quickly enough. That priest was sentenced to 50 years for possession of child pornography. As disgusting as that is, I did not hear that the priest was an actual practicing pedophile. Bishop Finn had waited six months to report his suspicions that the priest could be a child abuser.
When I had heard of that incident, I wondered about the problems with the case. The priest was not charged with any sexual crimes against a child. Bishop Finn had not covered up actual abuse by the priest. The charge against him was a misdemeanor, a low level crime, where he did not comply with a state law requiring prompt reporting of the suspicion of child abuse. His “crime” was that he took too long.
The real problem with Bishop Finn was that he was a true Catholic bishop, a man who spoke the Truth in season and out of season. He welcomed an order of real nuns. He was a vocal opponent of homosexual “marriages” condoned by the state. He offered the extraordinary form of the Mass. He took a guilty plea to spare the Church from a protracted spectacle. Now, more than two years later, he has offered his resignation, which was readily “accepted” by Pope Francis.
A different sort of bishop has been installed a month ago in Chile. Juan Barros is a homosexual who enjoyed having his genitals tickled by another priest, a priest who is the most despicable and notorious homosexual pedophile and pederast in that nation’s history. This newly imposed bishop watched the priest molest young teens and then actively destroyed the letters sent to complain about the priest. When Pope Francis appointed this cretin as bishop, many members of the diocese protested, joined in by many members of the national legislature, and asked that Pope Francis rescind this appointment of a man clearly unworthy to be a priest, let alone a Catholic bishop. The response of the pope is that there is no “objective” reason why Barros should not be a bishop. Of course, Barros refuses to resign.
So, Pope Francis quickly and readily accepts the “resignation” of a bishop who is faithful and who’s crime consisted of not telling the state about a priest who had child pornography for a period of time deemed to have been too long before he reported the priest. In contrast, Pope Francis has no “objective” reason to rescind the appointment of a homosexual priest who not only engaged in disgusting acts in front of teens with another priest, but also sat and watched the other priest sexually molest teens, getting his jollies by his voyeurism. Moreover, Pope Francis has no qualms about the fact that this bishop actively thwarted the attempts to inform his superior about the disgusting pederast and pedophile priest boyfriend of his. Despite the fact that Barros was a criminal accomplice to crimes against children, crimes which have actually harmed physically and spiritually many young men, and a faggot himself, Pope Francis appointed him as a bishop.
This is our Church. This is our pope. This is blatant evil.
steveesq
EX MAGNA SILENTIUM or EX MAGNO SILENTIO 
[…] his situation. When reading the below, please keep in mind the situation in Chile at present. (see here and […]
LikeLike
[I am posting the comments here but I have edited them. The fact that the priest Ratigan is a pedophile who possessed child pornography is not at issue. Details of those photos are unnecessary here.]
“That Barros is confirmed by Rome is atrocious, there is no doubt. However, Finn, despite all of his good work, was undeniably an enabler of pedophile priests. First, Shawn Ratigan was absolutely a practicing pedophile. He produced pornographic photos of children from his own parish. See the court opinion for United States v. Ratigan: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2685507/united-states-v-shawn-ratigan/”
[I am grateful for the appellate court opinion link where the court upheld the sentence imposed. I have edited here the salacious gratuitous details of the photos. I do note that the court stated that the Bishop’s vicar general was informed about the photos, looked at them, called the diocesan lawyer and described them, and the lawyer determined they were not pornography.]
“Next, see the Graves Report here. http://www.diocese-kcsj.org/_docs/8-31-11_Report_of_Independent_Investigation.pdf”
[The report also notes that the vicar general made the calls and the diocesan lawyer determined they were not pornographic, although the report states that only one photo was described. The report also notes that Bishop Finn did not know about these initial reviews. The report makes the point that under the guidelines in place at the time, child pornography was not clearly subject to mandatory action. The report also discusses that Bishop Finn met with Ratigan as soon as he was aware, removed him from his post, reached an agreement that Ratigan signed that sent him to the Vincentian convent with the prohibitions against being with children and having a computer and using the internet. Ratigan violated that agreement. As the report makes clear, accused priests are given a presumption of innocence and their reputations are considered in these circumstances until the claims are deemed credible. Bishop Finn had every reason to come to an agreement with Ratigan and to trust that he would abide by it. Bishop Finn’s “guilt” is that he trusted the priest. How terrible and evil of him!]
[The comments are too lengthy to include here, but in summary the author believes and makes the point that Bishop Finn sent Ratigan to the Vincentians without telling them about why he was there, that Ratigan had prohibited contact with teens and that Bishop Finn only scolded him when he found out, that Bishop Finn gave Ratigan’s laptop to Ratigan’s brother after the photos were copied onto a flash drive for the investigation and that this was the “crime” of destroying the evidence.]
LikeLike
The point of the post is that Bishop Finn was forced to “resign” for following the norms in place at the time that required time for the investigatory process to play out before he notified authorities that a priest was suspected of child abuse. In contrast, another bishop, Barros, who has been accused of watching actual abuse and also being an active homosexual is found worthy to be a bishop and appointed by Francis.
I appreciate your links to the court opinion and the independent counsel’s report of the incident and I am sharing them so that those who may wish to do so can read them.
However, it is clear that your comments were a shrill attack on Bishop Finn and a rehash of that which the “FishWrap” and so-called mainstream media have already said before, are too verbose and won’t be published here.
It is clear that Bishop Finn was guilty only of trusting others in the process that they were doing what was required, of giving Ratigan the benefit of the doubt until the charges were substantiated, and then, being a real man, fell on the sword for the sake of the Church and those under him. Compare that to the bishop in Chile, who refuses to go, who calls the cops to protect him as he leaves through back doors, and who has no compunction about his actions and how they impede his ability to carry out the duties of his office, which are apparently of no concern to him or the pope.
LikeLike
[…] I read here the open accusation that Bishop Barros would be a homo […]
LikeLike
With all due respect, you may want to consider rewording part of this piece based on this information:
http://www.themediareport.com/2011/10/15/what-the-media-got-wrong-in-the-bishop-finn-case/
http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=4332
LikeLike
Thanks but I’ll leave it as it is for now. However, I appreciate your links that provide more background for anyone who wants to read further.
LikeLike