GUILTY MO - Father Shawn Ratigan for child pornography, Kansas City, 2011

Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by Filly, May 19, 2011.

  1. Filly

    Filly KICKING AND SHINING

    Messages:
    17,500
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Father Shawn Francis Ratigan is a rat. The Kansas City Priest has been arrested for posession of child pornography.

    ....................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 pornography was of schoolgirsl where they were videoed up their skirts.


    http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/19/2887447/priest-charged-with-possession.html
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Filly

    Filly KICKING AND SHINING

    Messages:
    17,500
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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/
     
  4. norest4thewicked

    norest4thewicked Karma is a beautiful thing ~

    Messages:
    5,966
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    WOW!!! The Catholic church sure is messed up...STILL!!!
     
  5. Filly

    Filly KICKING AND SHINING

    Messages:
    17,500
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    As a Catholic I wouldn't say the entire Church is still covering, but this one sure smacks of such. Right?
     
  6. Filly

    Filly KICKING AND SHINING

    Messages:
    17,500
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  7. JoeFromLB

    JoeFromLB Active Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
  8. Missizzy

    Missizzy New Member

    Messages:
    10,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "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.
     
  9. Missizzy

    Missizzy New Member

    Messages:
    10,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Missizzy

    Missizzy New Member

    Messages:
    10,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/23/2896715/priest-pleads-not-guilty-to-child.html

    Priest pleads not guilty to child porn charges


    "A Roman Catholic priest pleaded not guilty today in Clay County court to criminal charges of possessing child pornography. 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 pornography...."

    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.
     
  11. Missizzy

    Missizzy New Member

    Messages:
    10,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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/2011/05/27/Priest-charged-with-child-pornography/UPI-54561306535928/

    Priest charged with child pornography
    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 pornography. 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
     
  12. Filly

    Filly KICKING AND SHINING

    Messages:
    17,500
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  13. davehead21

    davehead21 Active Member

    Messages:
    2,066
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.
     
  14. Missizzy

    Missizzy New Member

    Messages:
    10,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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 pornography 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.
     
  15. JoeFromLB

    JoeFromLB Active Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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!
     
  16. Missizzy

    Missizzy New Member

    Messages:
    10,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  17. JoeFromLB

    JoeFromLB Active Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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!
     
  18. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Diocese was warned in 2006 about priest now facing child porn charges, lawsuit alleges (kansascity.com)

    lengthy article at link above
     
  19. Missizzy

    Missizzy New Member

    Messages:
    10,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  20. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bishop apologizes in message read to Catholics in 98 parishes

    much more at KC Star link above
     
  21. Missizzy

    Missizzy New Member

    Messages:
    10,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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 pornography or sexual abuse, would be given that discretion. A child's safety is at stake.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice