GUILTY MO - Father Shawn Ratigan for child *advertiser censored*, Kansas City, 2011

Filly

KICKING AND SHINING
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
20,531
Reaction score
18,005
Father Shawn Francis Ratigan is a rat. The Kansas City Priest has been arrested for posession of child *advertiser censored*.

....................and here's the unholy truth. The Diocese was aware of this back in December. There's some cockamamey excuse as why the Church Officials didn't come forward immediately. Read link for more information.

The *advertiser censored* was of schoolgirsl where they were videoed up their skirts.


http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/19/2887447/priest-charged-with-possession.html
 
Ohhhhhhhh look Father has a Facebook.

Listed among his faves are some Scout troop, and youth minister cr*p*lla.





http://www.facebook.com/people/Fr-Shawn-F-Ratigan/539679534


And to make matters even worse Father made the news last December. Carbon Monoxide poisioning. Father didn't show for Mass and people went a lookin for him. They found him in grave condition. More at link.

http://www.kctv5.com/news/26187733/detail.html

Alrightie so was this after he got busted? Was the rat gonna off himself via carbon monoxide or is this a miracle and sign he survived?





Ah-ha! Bishop Finn reassigned Ratigan to work with the nuns. Gotta wonder when that happened. My bet is after he got caught.


http://saintpatrick-kc.com/announcements/
 
"Profoundly saddened"? Truly? So the diocese has been sitting around profoundly saddened for 6 months and did NOTHING right about that profound sadness? Jeesh. They take copies of the photos and give the computer to the family? I can hardly add up the number of mistakes made here. I'm glad that SNAP is involved and agree that church officials have a lot of explaining to do.
 
Ratigan's FB photo shows a "cool guy" priest. No doubt he was popular with the kids. The Harley and all. Even invited to a child's birthday party by parents. What does this tell you? Lots of access over the years. Lots.
 
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/23/2896715/priest-pleads-not-guilty-to-child.html

Priest pleads not guilty to child *advertiser censored* charges


"A Roman Catholic priest pleaded not guilty today in Clay County court to criminal charges of possessing child *advertiser censored*. Shawn Francis Ratigan, 45, of Kansas City, North is accused of taking pornographic photos of children around churches and schools where he had worked in the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph. Ratigan, who remains in custody on $200,000 bond, was charged last week with three counts of possessing child *advertiser censored*...."

more at link


It just really fries me that Bishop Finn took it upon himself to "restrict" Ratigan. It was only when Ratigan didn't follow the restrictions ie. a reasonably important one like staying away from kids, that the diocese contacted LE months later. Jeesh.

Maybe Ratigan will run into Roland and Burrell Mohler, Sr. at the Clay County Jail. They might not similar religious views but they sure share some other interests.
 
So Bishop Finn not only didn't turn the computer over to LE immediately, he also failed to act on reports from teachers and parents about Ratigan's inappropriate behavior with children. Will there be some sort of sanction for Bishop Finn's fail to report?

I guess this is right in line with the Vatican's new "guidelines". They merely suggest that Bishops work with LE. Those guidelines are not going to change a single thing, I'm afraid. I don't want to be disrespectful of the Bishop, however I cannot ignore the way he phrased his statement..."I owe it to the people to say things must change." Not to institute change but to just say it. Not enough.


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011...ild-*advertiser censored*/UPI-54561306535928/

Priest charged with child *advertiser censored*
May 27, 2011

"A Catholic priest who spent a lot of time with children at a Kansas City, Mo., parish school has been charged with possession of child *advertiser censored*. Investigators say the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, who was arrested last week and is being held in lieu of $200,000 bail, had pictures of children that looked like they had been taken in the parishes and schools where he worked..."

and

"...A technician found the images on Ratigan's laptop in December and turned it over to officials in the Missouri diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, the Star said. But the church only gave it to law enforcement this month...."

and

"...Bishop Robert Finn admitted at a news conference Friday the diocese was too slow to act and to heed early warnings about Ratigan's conduct. "I must also acknowledge my own failings," Finn said. "As bishop, I owe it to people to say things must change...."

and

"...The head of St. Patrick School told the diocese a year ago teachers and parents were concerned about the priest's behavior. His reported actions included allowing young girls to sit on his lap, rubbing their backs and taking what were described as "hundreds" of pictures..."

more at link
 
Bishop Finn can't be sorry enough.

I wonder if that's because he's now fearing he's going to be held accountable for covering this all up or he's just truly sorry?
 
This story is local to me-- I had no idea there was a thread about Ratigan here. I have some friends who, in the past, worked closely with this man.

As a Catholic, I am absolutely disgusted with the diocese, especially Bishop Finn. I think he needs to be held accountable for the cover-up and be made an example of. I believe that this would have been kept private had someone not pressured the diocese to give the info LE. I think someone told them "you have X amount of days to go to the cops or I will go."

I would also like to know why the computer person who first found the images didn't go to LE right away.
 
davehead--Good question. I've wondered if the tech might have been a member of the church. He surely only went half way in doing the right thing. And note how many months went by before Ratigan was arrested. Surely the tech was watching the situation. When nothing happened, he could and should have contacted LE.

Here in Oregon, we have a new law which requires an immediate report to LE concerning any child *advertiser censored* found during computer maintenance. There's a stiff penalty if you don't. In essence, computer techs have become mandated reporters. Check your state law and see what it says. The tech might be held accountable. He should be, IMO.
 
Bishop Finn can't be sorry enough.

I wonder if that's because he's now fearing he's going to be held accountable for covering this all up or he's just truly sorry?

He's a pretty decent bishop from everything I've read, but he's about to go through a firestorm of public scrutiny. There's zero tolerance for this sort of thing now.

By the way, I tried to send you a private message but couldn't, since your mailbox is full. You have to clear some messages!
 
I'm not so sure about the "zero tolerance". Have you read the article about the Vatican's new guidelines? We have a thread. Seems that they are merely suggesting that Bishops work with LE, not mandating it.

I have no doubt that Bishop Finn is a great guy and a wonderful Bishop but this is one area that the clergy better buckle down and get with the program, IMO.

We have a similar situation going on with the Keith Brown case in Utah and the Susan Brock case in Arizona. Both are members of the Mormon faith and both had Bishops who knew about their sexual abuse of a child/children and failed to report (or reported far later) to LE. Same with the Mohler group. Their Bishop knew years ago. None of these Bishops have faced any charges even though LE has recommended it.

I wish zero truly meant zero.
 
I meant zero tolerance from the public. I should have been clearer there. People in the pews are very, very upset at the foot dragging. I know I am!
 
Diocese was warned in 2006 about priest now facing child *advertiser censored* charges, lawsuit alleges (kansascity.com)

Local Roman Catholic officials were warned in 2006 about a priest now accused of possessing child *advertiser censored* yet took no action, a lawsuit filed in federal court Thursday alleges.

The lawsuit, filed by the parents of a young girl, also alleges that beginning around 2006 and continuing through 2010 the Rev. Shawn F. Ratigan took photographs underneath her clothing and while the child was nude.

Lawyers for the child’s family said the photographs were taken while Ratigan was assigned in St. Joseph.
---
lengthy article at link above
 
The diocese offered "listening sessions"???? Listening sessions. I am not happy.

I hesitate to be disrespectful of a Bishop but I'm starting to wonder if this was not a carefully planned and executed "oversight" rather than missed signals.

No wonder the people of Belgium are going straight to the Vatican.

If I were in those pews (as Joe said), I'd be literally vibrating with fury. How many little children were victimized AFTER this man's revolting behavior was brought to his superiors' attention?

Not acceptable.
 
Bishop apologizes in message read to Catholics in 98 parishes

In a statement read to Catholics across the Kansas City area Sunday, Bishop Robert Finn accepted responsibility for not responding to warnings about a priest now accused of possessing child *advertiser censored*.

Finn, leader of the Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese, has come under sharp criticism after a priest was charged last month with possessing child *advertiser censored*.
---
much more at KC Star link above
 
I'm pleased that the Bishop accepts responsibility. However, that doesn't undo the harm done. This case is an excellent example as to what can be expected by the Vatican merely suggesting that Bishops work with LE, as outlined in the new guidelines released last week, rather than mandating it.

If the Vatican truly wants to leave these reports to the Bishops' discretion, this man essentially followed the guidelines, if he really didn't think that the reports and photos were serious and if he thought his "restrictions" would fix the problem. It worries me that clergy, not highly experienced at evaluating child *advertiser censored* or sexual abuse, would be given that discretion. A child's safety is at stake.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
1,969
Total visitors
2,143

Forum statistics

Threads
589,984
Messages
17,928,670
Members
228,033
Latest member
okaydandy
Back
Top