Bishop Finn was finally forced to resign after years of public pressure. He hid a known, proven pedohile names Fr Shawn Ratigan, who is now serving 50 years in jail for possession of child porn, after being hidden by Bishop Finn for at least a year after he first heard about it, and at least 6 months after a computer tech found disturbing and disgusting child porn on Ratigans computer.
May 19, 2010: Julie Hess, principal of St. Patrick’s School, meets with Vicar General Robert Murphy about concerns of parents and school staff over “boundary issues” between the Rev. Shawn Ratigan and children. Murphy that month informs Finn about the concerns.
June 2010: Finn follows up on the issue with Ratigan
Dec. 16, 2010: A computer technician examines a laptop owned by Ratigan and observes alarming pictures of children. He takes the laptop to a parish official, who calls Murphy and takes him the laptop. Before receiving the laptop, Murphy calls a Kansas City police captain, describing a single photograph of a naked child in a nonsexual pose. The captain says that was not likely considered child pornography.
“Catholic Truth” vs the real truth
Catholics claim that Fr Murphy “called the police” and “described a picture of a naked photograph of a child”, and the police and said it was not likely to be child porn.
The real truth
Murphy didn’t “call the police”, which implies calling the police station. He actually called a police friend who was affiliated with the diocese. Murphy found a bunch of disturbing pictures on Ratigan’s computer, and distorted the truth for the police friend. The pictures will be described later (or you can scan down, and they would make a normal person puke).
Murphy said it was a nude photo of a relative, which deceptively sounds innocuous.
The truth about the pictures
The truth is that the pictures were not of a relative, but that’s not the disturbing part. The pictures were STAGED PHOTOS OF A 2 TO 3 YEAR OLD GIRL DOING A STRIPTEASE, with the diaper being gradually moved, until “her genitals were fully exposed”.
Brilliant way of telling a fraction of the truth, don’t they? Murphy wasn’t 100% completely lying (except about it being a relative, which makes it sound potentially innocent). But he was certainly lying in the eyes of God, intentionally trying to deceive his police friend
Proof, from the Catholic report, online
The proof is in the Graves report, the internal investigation done by the Catholic church by a company whose JOB is to protect the brand name of a company in crisis (from their web page), not to investigate.
The actual report is “hidden” online so it can’t be found easily in Google, but can be found in 2 places:
- Bishop Finn report on Catholic web site
- Bishop Finn report protecting pedophile priest on another web site
Read Page 90 and puke for yourself about the toddler doing a stages strip tease out of a diaper with fully vagina exposed, then decide if Fr Murphy was telling “the truth” or “the Catholic truth”.
Page 86 and 87 will tell you the true version of “calling the police”, and how a “nude child relative” was actually a STAGED strip tease.
At one point, when Finn was told about it, he said … brace yourself … “Boys will be boys”. The woman who said it later retracted it. Think she was afraid of her job? Who could possibly make that up, and why would they? (Source KSHB TV: Bishop Finn says “Boys will be boys” about pedophilia).
Think a CEO of any company wouldn’t be fired for hiding this from the ACTUAL police? Of course, Ratigan also managed to be around children months later, although Finn says he told him not to, but Finn never made any effort to enforce it. How would the CEO be judged if he knew about a known pedophile, and then allowed that pedophile unsupervised around children after not reporting the truth to the police?
And the evidence was destroyed, instead of being turned in by Finn. Again, what would you do to the CEO? Would you pay $1.4 million for his legal defense and another $300,000 for Ratigan? The Catholic church did.
Ratigan’s suicide note says he’s sorry for the children he hurt. When will we find out about the children he HURT, instead of just the ones he was looking at?