Bishop convicted in clergy abuse trial
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
A judge in Missouri Thursday convicted Kansas City Bishop Robert Finn of failing to report suspected child abuse by clergy but acquitted him on a second charge.
Jackson County Circuit Judge John Torrence gave Finn a suspended sentence of two years of unsupervised probation, The Kansas City Star reported.
Following the bishop’s conviction, prosecutors dropped their case against the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph.
The verdict came one day after it was reported Finn and the diocese had agreed to a bench trial. Minutes into Thursday’s proceedings, Torrence severed the cases. The diocese was also to have been tried Thursday.
Finn can have his record expunged if he gets through the probation period without further incident, the newspaper said.
Finn — the highest-ranking U.S. Catholic official convicted in the church’s long-running clergy sexual abuse scandal — could have been sentenced to a year in jail and fined $1,000 on each of two charges against him.
“I truly regret and am sorry for the hurt these events caused,” Finn told the judge before his trial began. “The protection of children is paramount and sexual abuse of any kind will not be tolerated.”
The decision to hold a bench trial, which was made public Wednesday in a court filing, avoided a lengthy jury trial that was scheduled to begin this month. [More]
SOURCE
UPI
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 24, 2013 7:00
Historic vote to accept gays as Boy Scouts draws mixed faith response
-
May 24, 2013 6:55
Faith-Healing Churches linked to 2 dozen child deaths
-
May 24, 2013 6:51
Clergy campaign for indigent care
-
May 24, 2013 6:46
Five more come forward alleging abuse by Hawaii Catholic priests
-
May 23, 2013 1:58
Religious freedom reports see little improvement in troubling countries
-
May 23, 2013 1:43
LGBT Catholics find a new supporter: An openly gay priest
-
May 22, 2013 1:37
Tornadoes exact deadly toll; region needs ‘a lot of prayers right now’
-
May 22, 2013 1:32
State Dept. report says countries have repressed religious freedom with laws
-
May 22, 2013 1:23
2 lawsuits filed against Maine Catholic church
-
May 21, 2013 1:32
Church Whistle-Blowers Join Forces on Abuse
34 Comments
If as you state there are no psycological tests that identify a pediphile how could this guy tell the bishop the priest was not a pediphile?
He would have given him his professional opinion, Tony — most things (with or without testing) are matters of professional judgment, so that should not be a surprise.
The poor people in Palm Beach had two bishops who were pediphiles the people of San Francisco are getting a bisop who drives around over the limit on alcohol and a bishop in Kansas just got sentenced for not reporting a pediphile. What a sorry group of men these are, and yet they go after the Good Sisters over nonsense. What a sorry group indeed.
The bishop in KC did not report the pedophile priest because an expert hired by the diocese told the bishop the priest he evaluated was not a pedophile. You don’t hire an expert to do an evaluation and then over-rule the conclusions of the expert. This poor, good Bishop Finn never should have been found guilty.
Jim, do you think that Bishop Finn masterbated since ordination to the priesthood or being a bishop as you suspect Sister Simon may have?
Negative, negative, negative — and wrong. Bishop Finn relied on the advice of an expert in allowing the priest in question to stay in ministry. I don’t care if the judge found the bishop guilty — it doesn’t mean it was the right decision. It is open season on the Catholic Church, fueled in part by the posters on this thread. You probably will be happy when the Catholic Church goes underground. I’ll be right with them — you can stay with Satan’s world and be smug in your arrogant belief you have slayed the monster, when in fact you have slayed the life blood of the world.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. You all can serve your own individual churches with yourself as the pope and you deciding your own dogma.
But, that’s appropriate — in your own church of which you are pope, you SHOULD decide your own dogma.
you serve Jim and only Jim.
Unless I miss my guess, Concerned, I’m getting the feeling you don’t like me!
Once again Jim the almighty has spoken. There is no excuse for what took place. The line about being duped by “the advice of others” is a smokescreen. But also once again you show your duplicity – when it suits your purpose all should be forgiven and ignored. When it does not, you lead the crusade against whoever you deem as guilty. What a sham. What a hypocrite. You better write the rule book so everyonoe knows who is worthy of doing whatever they want and getting away with it and who is not worthy.
Concerned — you posted, “The line about being duped by ‘the advice of others’ is a smokescreen.” That statement, Concerned, like most of your statements, is irrational; your irrationality does not allow me to converse with you. If a bishop does not listen to the opinion of an expert, why have the expert in in the first place? Also, if a priest truly is not a pedophile, God’s justice demands the priest not be treated like one. So again, the good Bishop Finn was just trying to be fair and just, and thus followed the advice of the consultant. And Concerned, just to let you know — if I was the judge, I’d let you into Heaven, provided you recognized your sins and repented. Going to Reconciliation and making an honest confession would be a great start.
And BTW, Concerned, it is you who has the double standard — you insist on condemning a bishop who is demonstrably innocent — the demonstration of his innocence is that he made a fair effort to address the problem by hiring a consultant expert and following his advice. Again, Concerned, it is you with the double standard. When’s the last time you’ve been to Reconciliation? Years? I guess you don’t need it because you don’t sin, right? You’re good enough to get into Heaven on your own merits, right? If you haven’t been to Reconciliation in the past year, Concerned, you are not a fervent Catholic. Also, you use artificial birth control, do you, because your well-formed conscience has told you you are right and the Church’s dogmatic, inerrant teaching on this subject is wrong? If I was a prosecutor, Concerned, I would toast you.
Jim, when was the last time you went to confession and confessed your sin of rash judgement agains Sister Campbell? If you haven’t confessed that sin you are not a faithful Catholic.
Well, Tony, I must admit, reading your post above made me LOL (no joke)!
Here’s the answer to your question: I’ve never confessed my sin of rash judgment against Campbell, because I never have accused her of anything other than being a sinful human — which our Church teaches us we all are. I am simply applying Church teaching to the specific case of Campbell.
addendum: so, I have re-discovered a second reason I post here — this provides amusement for me. But, as I’ve CONFESSED (on this blog, at least) in the past, I need to tear myself away from this site, because it literally is stopping me from doing other things God wants me to do. And, I do believe that, at my last confession (a week or two ago) I included wasting my time in my confession, and that waste includes my excessive posting here.
You have accused her of being a fake Sister. You have accused many people. Are you that blind. You just can’t stand when someone you agree with is measured in the same way that you measure those you disagree with. The same thing goes for Bishops. They have adopted the Charter for the Protection of Children as a smokescreen to deflect their own responsibility and they have applied it to others and claim to follow it to the letter. But when it comes time for them to be held to the same standards it is a different story. There is no defense of his inaction. As the policies of the charter are applied to others – they should apply to him. “The measure with which you measure will be measured back to you.”
Ah – there it is Jim the wanna-be prosecutor. The self-appointed examiner of sins. The one who has the crystal ball that tells him the sins of everyone. The hypocrite who loves to point to others to avoid his own failings. The one who somehow believes he is the grand inquisitor. The one who has incorpporated the beliefs of the pharisees and scribes into his definition of religion and faith. Poor, poor little man.
Jim, may I point out that your accusation that a Social Justice Sister is guily of sexual sin, when there is no evidence is irrational?
First of all, Tony, your use of the word “accusation” is inaccurate. Again, I accused her of nothing — I simply raised the question. Number two, raising the specter of sexual sin is NOT irrational — in fact, it is very very rational. Here’s why: (1) Campbell is human; (2) humans are sinners; (3) ergo Campbell is a sinner. Now, the question is, which sins has she committed? The Church teaches there are seven cardinal sins, which I enumerated yesterday, and one of those is lust. Find me the person who never has committed a sexual sin in her life, either with her body or in her mind. Such sexually pure people probably number less than ten since man was created by God.
So then we should be able to apply the same sylagisim to Groschel and say he is a sinner.
I never have said otherwise, Tony — of course, the good Father Groeschel is a sinner — he himself would be the first to admit that. But, I believe he lives a much more virtuous life than almost all of the rest of us.
And you believe the Sisters and others you disagree with have no virtue??? And then you claim you don’t have a double standard and are not a hypocrite?
And there is the Jim Almighty (in your mind) doing what he does – delving into the sinds of those he disagrees with. Making up the sins of others – but then says he does not judge others. Double-speak, duplicity, HYPOCRISY!
People should flood Kansas Trish Peters at tpeters@diocesekcsj.org or 816-756-1850 (she is the Protection Officer for t he Diocese of Kansas City, St Joe) stating that the Bishop violates the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. See if the rules apply to the Bishops who created the Charter.
Bishop Finn can no longer meet the requirements of the Charter for the Protection of Children. A background check will reveal that he has been convicted of a crime. A volunteer would be disqualified as being capable of serving in any volunteer capacity of the church if a background check revealed the ssame thing. Now let’s see how sincere the hierarchy of the church is – one set of policies for the big shot and another for everyone else? Or will they do the right thing and apply it equally to all? Time will tell.
Bishop Finn will be going through the motions of diocesan governance until either the pope or the Angel of Death comes to relieve him of his charge. And all the king’s horses, and all the king’s men, cannot put a humpty dumpty bishop back together again.
How nice that His Excellency can have his record expunged while the victims of the priest he covered up will suffer for the rest of their lives.
Tony — the criminal justice system rendered its just decision — so, you think the good Bishop Finn should have been given a punishment that is excessive? Also, IMO, he should not have been found guilty at all, as he relied on an expert in deciding about the priest who later, it was discovered, was a pedophile.
This felon who is a bisop should be deemed unfit for ministry and be thrown out of office.
Wow — grossly unfair. First, he was not convicted of a felony, so calling him a felon is a distortion of the facts. Number two — removing him from his bishopric because he followed the advice of a sexual perpetrator expert is in no way fair or rational.
You should needed to consult anyone about reporting a child molester, if your in charge. These bisops are far more dangerous than the nuns that you brand as heretics.
Shouldn’t
Tony — you miss the point. You don’t report a man who the expert has told you is not a danger to anyone.