UPDATE: A few more details of the lawsuit (via the Star): The Rev. Shawn Ratigan allegedly took nude photos of the 7-year-old girl, whose parents are filing the lawsuit, and engaged in sexually explicit conduct with the girl from 2006 to 2010. Ratigan is accused of sharing the photos on the Internet.
Also in the lawsuit, an allegation that Bishop Robert Finn and the diocese hid a 2006 report of suspicious behavior by Ratigan with a 4-year-old girl in order to avoid scandal. If that's true, Finn has got to go.
Original Story: If you were praying that the Kansas City-St. Joseph Catholic Diocese
and Bishop Robert Finn would get sued over failing to act on concerns over the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, your prayers have been answered.
A lawsuit against the diocese, Finn and Ratigan will be announced this afternoon, according to NBC Action News. The lawsuit is being filed by the parents of a 7-year-old girl, who say their daughter was one of Ratigan's victims, and they're accusing the diocese, Finn and Ratigan of engaging in a cover-up.
According to KSHB Channel 41:
A couple of weeks ago, Ratigan was arrested for allegedly possessing child pornography. More specifically, Ratigan is accused of keeping up-skirt photos of young girls taken at the church and around theThe lawsuit comes from the parents of a 7-year-old girl. Lawyers, in a
release, said the girl is a victim. Those lawyers said Ratigan, while
working for a church in Easton, Missouri, took pictures of the girl when
she was 2- or 3-years-old. The suit alleges Ratigan and Bishop Robert
Finn, trying to avoid a church scandal, concealed sexually inappropriate
photos found on Ratigan's computer.
school. The arrest came five
months after the diocese became aware that he kept images of children
on his computer -- and a year after Julie Hess, the principal at St.
Patrick School, warned the diocese in a five-page memo about teachers' and parents' concerns about Ratigan's "inappropriate behavior with children." (The Catholic Key Blog has shot down rumors that Hess' job may be in danger.)
Finn has since apologized for failing to act, which is too little, too late.
Showing 1-26 of 26
Kansas Voter is Trolling any line that mentions child rape or pornagraphy just looking for a way to get himself hard. He wants the rest of the world to let him rape anyone he chooses regardless of their age though he has clearly voiced his taste for children.
So you've established the fact that you like sex with children under the age of 18 but mostly you like to rape 14 year olds. Is brainwashing children to "like" you raping them the toy you use?
Guys like that are only looking for anyone under 18 to bust. A watermellon doesn't plead and scream for them to stop. There's only fun in the raping and picture taking of children for Kansas Voter.
Do you diddle your own kids and any relatives that are dumb enough to leave their kids with you. Man you just can't jump quick enough to find a reason to make rape and nasty pictures with kids ok.
Here you are again jumping on the rapers band wagon. You can be found every where defending rapers and now you're making it clear how much you enjoy naked pictures of children under 18 or like you love to say "teenagers". We got the message, anything to do nasty with children or teenagers is right up your alley.
Kansas_Voter, we're blocking your sick ass. If anyone wonders why, read his comments.
A trait they share with many pedophiles, rapists, and sexual predators.
I'm done here.
"You're saying an 8-year-old can give proper consent to having sex with a 50-year-old and nobody will get hurt."
Exactly. As long as violence isn't involved, nobody will get hurt (just like all other kinds of sex). What harm do you see coming from consensual sex (you still haven't given a legitimate example)? And of course I'm angry about this subject, much like gay activists are angry at the persecution of gays. Like I said earlier, you're no better than a racist or a homophobe. I'm sure you don't see it that way, but racists and homophobes think that their beliefs are correct, too.
You're saying an 8-year-old can give proper consent to having sex with a 50-year-old and nobody will get hurt.
Ok.
You know... the great thing about blogs are almost always the comments. Fostering communities, open discussions, and if there's an aspect to something the post's writer didn't properly consider some great back-and-forth can go on. I can even have fun with the regular posters that are dicks because the sparring itself can be enjoyable. And I used to look forward to you posting, too
Now, you scare the shit out of me. You seem so angry, and so sure about this stuff. Is this something you have a personal history with? I don't expect you to answer that in this forum, I don't know if I'd trust the answer you gave anyway. From here on seeing the name "Kansas Voter" will be like seeing the darkened entrance to a cave and wondering if there's a nest of snakes in there. This isn't blog hyperbole where we all call each other worse than Hitler and have a good laugh. I'm worried. Please talk to some people who are close to you about this stuff, people you trust, and based on their reactions maybe talk to a professional.
"But you're saying 50 years old and 8 years old should not be illegal?"
As long as nobody gets hurt, no. Messy legal situations can happen due to just about anything, so that's not a valid basis to keep consensual sex illegal. If it was a valid basis, divorce would be illegal. If you throw away the useless "statutory rape" mindset it's pretty easy to judge these situations on a case by case basis and determine which ones really are rape. Some of them ARE rapes...but the vast majority are not.
You honestly don't think there should be any statutory at all? I thought you might try and argue puberty - since even nature has a time when it lets you know you're becoming sexually mature. But you're saying 50 years old and 8 years old should not be illegal? You don't think that might get a little messy in court? "You honor, seven-year-old Alicia now claims she didn't want to have sex with my client, but I can assure you the sex was consensual at the time, and this is just a heartbroken strumpet of a toddler with a long history of sexual partners looking to personally hurt my client for refusing to carry on the relationship." You probably think I'm being sarcastic here, but I'm really not. If you don't have any statutory laws, and you have attorneys doing everything they can to defend their clients, don't you're going to have little kids going through some brutal cross-examination about how surely they understood what was going on.
Because if that is as far as you're willing to let it go....man.... I don't even know what to say to that.
I would abolish all statutory rape laws but keep all of the regular rape laws and just apply them to everyone. I think that people of all ages know what they do and don't want to do, and they should be allowed to do what they want to do. I'm a liberal libertarian--a liberaltarian. I think that government should stay out of people's personal business, and sex is a big part of that. The only harm consensual sex can cause is when people get brainwashed into thinking that what they did was wrong and that they were harmed.
"The Catholic Church has more money than any other religious denomination in the world"
Exactly, and there's absolutely no way to defend themselves from accusations like this, hence they're an easy target. If this wasn't about money they wouldn't have filed a civil lawsuit asking for money.
Hey KV,
I posted this over in the original plog on this case, but thinking you might not be checking week-old blogs, and honestly wondering what you think about this, I moved it here. Anyway...here's my little cut-and-paste.
Let's say you get to make the age of consent rules - since this has come up lately on a couple blogs. On the Sam Logan thing you said 14 was old enough to informed consent with a 46-year-old with sex toys in his car, in this case you've said something to the effect of people getting in trouble for contact with anyone under the age of 18. So, is there an age, in your eyes, at which you should be protected from middle-aged men trying to seduce you? 14 is ok by you, we've established that. So 13? 12? 11? 10? Lower? Do you think there should be no line? I'm not even trying to bait you, I'm actually genuinely curious what you think a reasonable age is. I am trying to understand you man.
Kansas_Voter......EASY TARGET??? frivolous???? REALLY???? They made themselves an easy target by neglecting their duties as "Followers of Christ", Protectors of "God's" children, and flat out priests. The Catholic Church has more money than any other religious denomination in the world...therefore the BEST lawyers, government officials and most likely your employer. So before you go defending these sick human beings....well, just think for a second. K? thanks. Ohh, not to mention this all could have been avoided 4 years ago had Bishop Finn been doing his job!
Nope, not joking. I just read the lawsuit and all I saw was a bunch of legal bullshit and no real crimes. I also saw that the parents are asking for punitive damages, so this is just another frivolous lawsuit against an easy target.
I think the smoking gun is going to be when the Principal's letter shows up and has written on it "tl;dr Bish Finn"
SNAP's agenda is instituting women priests, though males must atone for
the "Sin of Adam." Pop cultural ascription of Original Sin to women
correlates with those eras of greatest abuse of women. It's not the "Sin
of Adam & Eve." Man up. And women priests are but one step in the
strategy of those homosexual/ephebophile/pedophile priests who
internationally networked on the pornographic website, St. Sebastian's
Angels. Their strategy is for the Roman Rite to allow married priests
(other rites already do), though Christ called for "spiritual eunuchs";
then urge ordination of priestesses; and then they confidently believe
the world would accept openly homosexual/ephebophile/pedophile priests.
You help abuse victims with neutral support, and that means not
condemning them for getting high, or for having sent kids to Catholic
school with man priests. Women priests have equal potential for child
predation given the lax protocols in place.
Three billion dollars in hush money later as USA victims have been paid
to keep quiet, it's time for a Federal grand jury and a RICO
racketeering lawsuit. My bona fides are as a founder of a rape victim
counseling center, and my only agenda is stopping rape. It is wholly
unethical to serve up victims to any subterranean agenda, whether urging
victims of spousal abuse to become homosexuals as one area group did;
or SNAP's foray into theology that would enable the very predators they
decry. Good communication, safe transportation and housing, cops, cell
phones, pepper spray, and concealed carry stop rape. Get your kids that
milder dog-formula pepper spray and a good liability insurance policy.
It hurts for twenty minutes if they accidentally shoot themselves or
innocent others. And check out Judith Reisman's research on sexologist
Alfred Kinsey to uncover the roots of institutionalized child rape. I
would be happy to reply further at Catholic Answers Forums. "Pray and
work." --St. Benedict
The one who should be FIRED AND REMOVED post-haste is his "His Excellency" Robert Finn of the Kansas City-St.Joseph Archdiocese, who plainly violated and ignored well-established Church guidelines on dealing with cases of possible/suspected sexual abuse. The mandatory reporting rule -- which has been around for several years -- is simply this: when in doubt, pick up the phone and call the police. Finn and company continue to follow the old-style "cover-up" rule which prevailed for the last 50 years or more, and which, since the early 2000s, has cost the Catholic Church and its insurers several billions of dollars world-wide in court judgments, legal settlements and attorney fees. They just never learn down at the Cathedral. Like the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand, they believe no one will see or catch them.
I would guess that these parents are seeking discovery, unraveling every piece of evidence in toto, versus the minimal damages. This is known as the "up axx pics" with subpoena power allowing a thorough housecleaning of memories, files and computers.
This seems like a whole lot of trouble for just a few clothed upskirt pics and one nude pic. I wonder how much the parents of the "victim" are suing for?
This brave girl and her parents are to be commended for taking action to
expose the truth and protect kids.
We urge anyone, who has knowledge
or may have been harmed by Ratigan, to contact police, or an attorney, not
church officials. Sex crimes, however old, should be investigated by the
independent professionals in law enforcement, not the biased amateurs in church
offices. Child predators rarely have only one victim.Plus,
--Victims invite upset parishioners to "Q & A" meeting in Kansas
City.
SNAP, a support group for clergy sex abuse victims and their
families is inviting Kansas City Catholics to an open meeting to discuss
controversial child porn and cover up allegations involving a local priest, Fr.
Shawn
Ratigan.
The meeting will be Thursday, June 2 at 7 p.m. at the Kansas City North
Community Center, 3930 N.E. Antioch Road, (816-784-6100)Judy Jones, SNAP
Midwest Associate Director, 636-433-2511snapjudy@gmail.com"Survivors
Network of those Abused by Priests" and all clergyhttp://www.snapnetwork.o...
like
dislike
