Story here.
I support this prosecution, and I only would add that I don’t understand why Monsignor Murphy was not also indicted.
Of course, if Bishop Finn was kept in the dark, then he should not be found guilty, but in light of the Church’s own guidelines he had an affirmative duty to be aware of what was happening, so I am perfectly comfortable with charging him and letting a trial determine if there’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Obviously, if he broke the law, he should be prosecuted for that. But the whole idea of mandatory reporting by private individuals (priests, therapists, etc) seems odd to me. Maybe it’s my ignorance, but it’s my understanding that physical and sexual abuse of children is the only crime where there is the mandatory reporting requirement. So, it seems odd that, first, we give a group of private individuals a special responsibility to report crime, and second, we only do it in regard to specific crimes.
We do it because children need assistance in taking care of themselves. A 2 or 3 year old who has had some perv taking pictures of her vagina may not realize there is something wrong with that. A child who has been sexually molested or beaten by someone in a position of authority over them may think that’s the way things are supposed to be; that it happens to all kids.
Priests were not always covered under the “mandatory reporting” laws, mainly due to the sanctity of the confessional. When it was discovered that the higher levels of the Catholic Church were very well aware of abuses of children by priests - that their solution was to move the abuser to a fresh field of victims - priests were included. This was not a one or two time thing - this was a systematic pattern of behavior.
I’m puzzled by a few things, here. First, it says that he never reported it to the authorities, but instead only told a police officer about it. Isn’t that what “reporting it to the authorities” means?
Second, photos of clothed kids “with the focus on their crotch areas” sounds like it could be purely manufactured outrage. I mean, what’s the objective standard by which you judge what the focus of a photograph is? And if the kids were clothed, what else is there besides this vaguely-defined focus to classify them as child porn?
The “series of pictures of a 2- to 3-year-old girl with her genitals exposed” is more problematic, of course, but it’s still possible for such pictures to be nonsexual. That’s potentially young enough, for instance, that it’s plausible she might have been baptized in the nude, and the family’s always taking a lot of pictures at a baptism. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those pictures made their way to the priest.
Of course, if the evidence does show that this bishop was at fault, here, then absolutely, throw the book at him. But I don’t think that what’s in that article really makes that clear.
If the argument is that child abuse and neglect are especially heinous, then why isn’t there a mandatory requirement that everyone report them? If this guy wasn’t a bishop; if he was the CEO of an accounting firm, or whatever, and he found out that one of his employees had potential child porn on his computer, it’s my understanding that, regardless of what you might think of the rightness or wrongness of his not reporting it, he wouldn’t be breaking the law by not doing so.
Because churches and other similar organizations are in a position of authority over kids. Priests are entrusted with children in a way that CEOs of accounting firms aren’t. Thus, they have a duty to take action to protect a child they suspect is in danger.
A few photos among other totally innocent photos, OK. But the article says he had hundreds of child crotch shots. That seems…indefensible, to me. Without seeing the photos, I can’t say for sure, but it seems unlikely they’d classify these as pornography if it was just a full-length photo of a kid where the crotch featured prominently or whatever. My guess is that for most of these photos, the crotch was the only thing in the picture. (This is grossing me out just talking about it. Ugh.)
I was raised Catholic and have been to a lot of baptisms for kids of various ages, and I have never seen one done in the nude. It would be extremely unusual for a toddler to be baptized nude, and if one was, I fail to see how you could get a series of photos of that toddler’s genitalia. I mean, short of being a parent with bathtub pictures of your own kid, I do not see any legitimate way that you have multiple photos of a child’s genitalia in your possession.
Depends on who “they” are. If “they” means an overzealous DA who’s pushing for re-election on a “tough on child porn” platform, or someone with a vendetta against the Catholic church, or sensationalist media who wants a high-profile story at all costs, I can very easily see them labeling a bunch of pictures that just happen to contain crotches along with other clothed body parts as porn.
Likewise, the story doesn’t actually say that there was more than one picture with exposed genitalia. It says that there was a series of images, and that the series of images contains exposed genitalia. How many images of the series contain genitalia, vs. how many without? They don’t say. For all that we have there, it could just be a whole bunch of pictures of a baptism or whatever (hence, a “series”), where one of them just happened to catch the wrong angle.
Now, I’m not saying that these images are all innocent. I don’t know. I’m just saying that, based on what we know, they might be.
You are more generous than I am in assigning innocent motives to a person who saves multiple images of a toddler’s genitalia on his computer, when the toddler is not related to him.
Not exactly. In this case, Monsignor Murphy, the diocese’s vicar general, discussed the situation with a police officer without completely describing the situation.
From Yahoo News:
I don’t know if that conversation qualifies as proper reporting to the appropriate authorities.
Could be, but maybe not, “manufactured outrage.”
It is completely implausible that a child would be baptized nude in a Catholic ceremony. And if those pictures were found along with what were described as hundreds of “disturbing” pictures of children, the context makes it unlikely that the possession of those images was innocent in nature.
If the law requires the biship to report allegations of abuse, and he knowingly failed to do so, he should be charged. I am well aware that these days, Catholic priests are particularly vulnerable to false accusations (for example, see the case of Joseph Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago), but it seems that in this case a credible accusation was made to the diocesan authorities, and they failed to act appropriately. Assuming the accuracy of the news reports, I can see no reason why Bishop Finn should not be charged. And I say this as a faithful Catholic. And, like Bricker, I wonder why Monsignor Murphy has not been charged along with the bishop.
Every infant baptism I’ve ever seen, the kid has been nude.
I don’t doubt you at all, but that hasn’t been my experience. I’ve never been to a baptism, Catholic or othewise, where the child was naked. I can see how it might be the norm in denominations that practice full-immersion infant baptism, but definitely not in the Catholic Church.
Who knows. Maybe times have changed. It’s been a while since I’ve been to a christening.
It’s not unusual in some churches. It’s not a “Catholic” thing - it jsut depends on the locals.
As I understand it, full immersion is the preferred form within the Catholic church. It’s not required as it is in some denominations, and of course it requires a bit more infrastructure than sprinkling or pouring, but it is preferred.
Neither my kid, nor any of my siblings’, relatives’ or friends’ kids, in total at least twenty over the last 25 years, in Pakistan, UK, USA and Canada, has ever been baptized in any other way than in a white dress, fully clothed. All Roman Catholic, except a couple of Anglican/Episcopalian.
So I am wondering where you are getting your experience from.
The only baptism I’ve been to was a Catholic one. The kids, oh ages 3-6 years, wore white gowns and had a cross traced on their forehead. Except for the youngest (the one whose family I knew. His parents met on the SDMB) who was fully immersed, fully nude. As he was just a few months old at the time, no one objected.
Only surprise in this story was that the children were girls!
I have no idea if this PARTICULAR bishop is guilty of anything, but I’ve long believed that, if things are to change for the better, some bishops will probably have to do some jail time.
If there is a case to be made that ANY bishop obstructed justice or acted as an accessory after the fact in a sex abuse case, I’d like to see him prosecuted. And if the prosecutor is a devout Catholic, so much the better.
You understand wrong. I’ve NEVER heard of full immersion in Catholic baptism. A christening gown is worn for infants, and water is poured over the forehead, while the priest recites the Sign of the Cross ("I baptise you in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Usually a bib with a Chi Rho is also worn.
In fact, I wore my great-grandmother’s christening gown. So did my sister, and so did several of my cousins.
I’ve been to quite a few Catholic baptisms, and none of them were done full-immersion. If you want I’ll ask my dad if it’s ever done, but not that I’ve ever seen.
I do not understand why the Church’s guidelines or internal policies should have any bearing whatsoever on whether this guy is charged with a crime. Or are you merely saying something about your own comfort level? Are you suggesting that you would have more problems with a prosecution if Church guidelines were somehow different?