Notes on the outrage that is Bishop Finn

The Star reports today that Bishop Finn testified yesterday to a grand jury. Good. Great. But it's just a start. There's at least four things about yesterday's proceedings that seem extremely pertinent. The first is that Bishop Finn needs to be asked in a very public forum like this why Msgr. Robert Murphy, who was "the diocese's seond-in-command", didn't have direct orders from the Bishop himself to report any and all accusations of sexual abuse or suspicions of sexual abuse and/or misconduct. What was that about? Why would or did Msgr. Murphy get a letter from a principal in St. Joseph a year and a half before anything was done about it, yet he said nothing, not a thing, to Bishop Finn of it? And let me be clear, I don't blame Msgr. Murphy for this oversight completely at all. Bishop Finn should have spelled out he needed--not wanted, needed--to be notified of any and all improprieties or suggestions thereof, immediately up notice by anyone and everyone in the Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese but especially and particularly from Msgr. Murphy. Second, the Kansas City policeman--Capt. Richard Smith--who saw one picture of Ratigan's and said it "didn't constitute pornography" failed the Diocese, too. What if the one picture he saw was of his own child? Would that not have made any difference? Further, I find it extremely difficult to believe this officer didn't ask if there were any other pictures of which he should be aware. Third,The Star reports that "In December, diocesan authorities found what prosecutors later alleged was child pornography on Ratigan’s computer." And while that's true, actually, from earlier Star reports, it has become clear that Ratigan had at least inappropriate, if not pornographic, pictures of area Catholic Diocese children on three of his computers through the area. The first was in St. Joseph, the second in Independence and the third right here in Kansas City. Finally, I hope this grand jury will interview--at length--the principal I mentioned earlier, from St. Joseph, who sent the letter a year and a half before any concerns were raised about Sean Ratigan. It seems she and maybe some parents there could absolutely shed some light on Ratigan's activities and on Bishop Finn's total, complete and utter lack of response to this situation. Oh yeah, we need many more answers than what we've gotten. I still contend that, like Monsignor William J. Lynn of Philadelphia, Bishop Finn should be charged in some appropriate, local court for "a charge of conspiracy to endanger the welfare of children." For Bishop Finn to say, yesterday, as he did that "We're doing the best we can to cooperate with law enforcement" seems a blatant and ugly mistruth. Link to original post: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/16/3147922/bishop-testifies-before-grand.html