Free publicist for Church malcontents: Laurie Goodstein from the New York Times

How do you get the attention of America's newspaper of record?

First, find a handful of others to form a group declaring yourself opposed to sex abuse in the Catholic Church. Second, put together a third-rate website (even if it is not even online) announcing your intention to solve the now largely nonexistent problem of sex abuse. Finally, phone the New York Times National Religion Correspondent Laurie Goodstein to obtain all the free public relations you want.

So appears the strategy of a fringe group of dissident priests, nuns, and other left-wing zealots called Catholic Whistleblowers, which Goodstein proudly promoted on the Times' front page just last year.

The premise of the group is simple but inane: the diabolical hierarchy of the Church is still covering up widespread abuse of minors by priests, and it is up to these select and valiant malcontents to blow the lid off the cover-up.

Goodstein: Always at the ready for Church malcontents

Lacking any real conspiracies to blow the lid off of, however, Catholic Whistleblowers recently decided to now petition Pope Francis to discipline Kansas City-St. Joseph Bishop Robert Finn over his handling of a priest who was found to have child pornography on his computer a couple years ago.

Seizing upon overheated media coverage, the local prosecutor brought questionable misdemeanor charges against Bishop Finn for waiting too long to report the priest, to which Finn later pleaded to a suspended sentence.

And while Catholic Whistleblowers knows that their petition will likely go nowhere at the Vatican – as rightly it should – they know that it will go a long way in Manhattan, as they can always call on the reliable Goodstein for some free public relations.

And Goodstein always obliges, as she recently penned a high-profile article giving Times-like gravitas to the group's silly petition and once again rehashing the story of Bishop Finn's sentence.

The hidden agenda of Church cranks

Basking in the publicity: Church misanthropes meet the press in Missouri

In her article, Goodstein also quotes a local Missouri rabble-rouser named John Veal, who predictably wants Finn thrown out of Missouri. But Goodstein never reveals to her readers that Veal has already been using the episode about Bishop Finn as a vehicle to promote "women ordination" and having the Church abandon the celibacy requirement for priests.

In a wild-eyed piece for the Kansas City Star back in 2011, Veal illogically tried to connect the Bishop Finn episode to the Church's all-male and celibate priesthood, as if somehow there were a connection between the two issues. And since Veal's agenda aligns perfectly with that of the Times' editorial board, Goodstein is more than happy to promote Veal without revealing his agenda.

[By the way, any time someone feels the need to identify himself as a "devout Catholic" – as Veal does – it's a safe bet that the last thing they are "devout" to is the teachings of the Catholic Church.]

The Times' real agenda exposed – once again

As we have stated several times before, Laurie Goodstein is utterly obsessed with the Catholic Church sex abuse story. Nearly one out of every three articles she has authored or co-authored so far this decade for the Times has been solely about sex abuse in the Catholic Church.

Meanwhile, Goodstein has authored exactly zero articles about sex abuse in any other religious organization during this same time period.

And the Times' never-ending fixation with decades-old scandals in the Church – while ignoring the scandals happening today in local public schools right in its own backyard – reveals that it is not really the sexual abuse of children that bothers the Times. What bothers the Times is that the Catholic Church offends the Times' collective ego, as it does not adhere to the paper's own radical, secularist worldview.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[An additional note ... In her article, Goodstein also makes reference to a "a German bishop who spent tens of millions building his opulent quarters." Well, that has been a story that the mainstream media has proudly trumpeted in past months. But, yet again, the truth about this episode involving Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst is another matter. Check out the must-read "The Real Scandal in Germany" over at Crisis magazine, which corrects the record about this story. It is written by Marie Meaney, who actually knows what she's talking about.]

New York Times vs. The Catholic Church: Religion Editor Laurie Goodstein,
Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal, Reporter John Eligon

If anyone needed another example of the New York Times' obsession with blasting the Catholic Church, one does not need to look further than the paper's coverage following the guilty verdict of Kansas City–St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn.

One cannot help but wonder when a misdemeanor conviction (with a suspended sentence) has ever resulted in two front-page stories (1, 2) and a breathless editorial in the Grey Lady before.
[UPDATE: And if that were not enough, the Times also added an op-ed from Frank Bruni on September 11!]

Indeed, the guilty verdict in the Bishop Finn trial was historic, but a sense of perspective is in order. The diocese delayed in reporting that a priest had lewd photographs of children on his computer. But there is plenty of evidence, either ignored or downplayed by the Times, that Finn took the hit for the failures of the people who worked under him.

Criminal failures

Many in the public are unaware that two computer technicians, a diocesan lawyer, a monsignor, a vice-chancellor, a psychiatric doctor, and a deacon all allegedly saw the disturbing images from Fr. Ratigan's computer, but none of them officially alerted law enforcement.

According to an independent report of the entire Ratigan episode, known as the Graves Report, Bishop Finn stated that he "never saw the images" from the priest's laptop. Indeed, as the Graves Report concluded:

"As soon as the photographs were discovered on Fr. Ratigan's laptop, police should have been formally notified. Although various individuals undoubtedly believed that someone else would make the call, the fact remains that a phone call could have been made by anyone and everyone with knowledge of the pictures."

The failures of Bishop Finn and the diocese are obvious. Under no circumstances can any wrongdoing be defended whatsoever. As the bishop himself stated following his trial, "The protection of children is paramount, and sexual abuse of any kind will not be tolerated." Amen.

Some sex abuse more newsworthy than others

However, while the Times hyperventilates over this misdemeanor conviction, the paper continues to turn a blind eye to massive sex abuse and cover-ups occurring today in our nation's public schools – much of it in its own backyard.

As we have relayed several times before, it has been reported that just in the first three months of 2012 alone in New York City public schools, there were "248 complaints of sexual misconduct involving school employees."

Where's the outrage?

The glaring double standard only shows that the Times' coverage of sex abuse in the Catholic Church has nothing to do with sex abuse and everything to do with plastering the Church for not adhering to the paper's "progressive" secular agenda.

Microphones before victims? David Clohessy makes a disturbing request

If there is one "bright spot" in the outcome of the Bishop Finn trial, it is that innocent victims and their families were spared the excruciating ordeal of having to appear in public court and having to identify how they were criminally victimized by Fr. Shawn Ratigan.

Indeed, Kansas City Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker announced in a press conference after the verdict last Thursday:

"The victims in this case have the real win today … We did not have to drag in parents for them to have to identify photographs of their children … [These victims' families] were all ecstatic that this could end today and it would end with their child's anonymity clearly in place, that their child's anonymity would be protected … None of the families expressed any kind of anger about this outcome. They're thrilled. They're absolutely thrilled with the outcome."

However, if it were up to David Clohessy, the National Director of SNAP, innocent children and their families would have towed themselves through a media circus and into court to publicly relive the horror of having been victimized.

A disturbing letter and appearance

As Clohessy announced in a press conference before the verdict in the trial, he sent a letter on behalf of SNAP urging the judge and the prosecutor to conduct a "separate hearing" for victims to appear in court in the event of a guilty outcome for Bishop Finn.

Clohessy's request appeared to serve no other purpose except to simply try to prolong the media spectacle in favor of SNAP, to give the group more microphone time to trumpet its anti-Catholic tirades.

Moreover, as prosecutor Peters Baker made very clear, victims did not want a prolonged ordeal. Apparently, this did not mean anything to Clohessy.

This episode also illustrates how out of touch SNAP is with so many clergy abuse victims. Even though this case took place in the same state as Clohessy's residence, he publicly made an urgent request that was in direct opposition to the wishes of the victims in this case.

Here is a clear example of SNAP putting its own anti-Catholic agenda ahead of the welfare of victims.

"My take is that they have a hatred toward the Church. Their mission is no longer to assist victims, but is to strike at the Church and wound the Church."

Archbishop Naumann also added:

"In my experience, they have never acknowledged a false accusation. As far as they are concerned, if you are accused, you are guilty. They don't take anyone off the list. They don't serve themselves well by insisting that every accusation is true …

"I have victims who have come to me. They no longer want to go to SNAP because it's only interested in fostering anger, and building a case against the Church, not serving the victims well.

"People are hesitant — and I'm hesitant — to say this. But I am saying what many bishops are thinking. They are afraid to say it because SNAP will set themselves up on their doorstep."

Archbishop Naumann should be commended for speaking the truth. Readers of TheMediaReport.com know that this site has been documenting the long history of dishonesty and mean-spiritedness of SNAP for a while now.

(A final aside: Comments on the Internet should be viewed cautiously, but there is an interesting comment below the interview:

Posted by Jean on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011 11:37 PM (EDT):
My brother was sexually abused by a priest many years ago. I suggested he look into SNAP and he has since become a member of the organization. He is a broken, bitter and depressed man. Being involved in SNAP has not helped him in anyway progress in his healing and on the contrary seems to be only increasing his pain. They have been using his rage, emotion and vulnerability to further their own agenda. Forgiveness, healing and reuniting with the sacraments is replaced with a "lets take 'em all down" attitude. I am rightly angered by the behavior of the priest abuser, and all clergy and hierarchy who let this happen to my brother, but SNAP adds insult to injury.

Let us pray for justice and compassion for victims of clergy abuse and their families.
And let us pray for brave and leaders like Archbishop Naumann and all our priests.)

However, in the midst of the over-the-top, breathless news coverage of recent events (see this huge headline at Huffington Post), the media has once again missed a number of important elements in its reporting.

1. Many in the public are unaware that two computer technicians, a diocesan lawyer, a monsignor, a vice-chancellor, a psychiatric doctor, and a deacon all allegedly saw the disturbing images from Fr. Ratigan's computer, but none of them officially alerted law enforcement.

According to an independent report of the entire Ratigan episode, known as the Graves Report, Bishop Finn stated that he "never saw the images" from the priest's laptop. Indeed, as the Graves Report concluded:

"As soon as the photographs were discovered on Fr. Ratigan's laptop, police should have been formally notified. Although various individuals undoubtedly believed that someone else would make the call, the fact remains that a phone call could have been made by anyone and everyone with knowledge of the pictures."

2. As soon as a dubious photograph was found on Fr. Ratigan's computer, a Church official did speak with a police captain.

Multiple media reports have given the false impression that the diocese did "nothing" after a computer technician found a dubious photograph of an underage girl on Ratigan’s computer in December 2010.

Unfortunately, the police captain, upon given a description of the photograph over the phone, opined to Msgr. Murphy that the picture likely did not fit the definition of child pornography and would not be prosecutable.

https://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile/52721715-68/ratigan-diocese-computer-finn.html.csp

The mistake – obviously – is that the diocese still should have immediately removed Ratigan from ministry and filed a police report anyways.

3. Fr. Ratigan worked at a parish with a school. The school's principal and teachers appear to have violated Missouri's mandated reporting law, yet prosecutors have declined to prosecute them. Instead, Kansas City prosecutors have targeted the higher profile target of Bishop Finn.

The principal of the school, Julie Hess, wrote in a May 2010 letter of concern to the diocese (handled by Monsignor Robert Murphy) that the priest was "at school every day for long periods of time."

Principal Hess' letter also outlined page after page of "inappropriate conduct with children" by Ratigan and suspicious photography of vulnerable children by the priest.

Missouri's law is clear: If teachers and school principals have "reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been or may be subjected to abuse or neglect or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse or neglect, that person shall immediately report or cause a report to be made to [the state's Children's Division]." The state adds, "Reasonable cause to suspect means a standard of reasonable suspicion, rather than conclusive proof." Failing to report is a Class A misdemeanor in Missouri.

It certainly appears that if Principal Hess and teachers at St. Patrick had immediately fulfilled their legal duty to report "reasonable suspicion" of abuse to the state, Fr. Ratigan's sick actions could have been stopped in their tracks much earlier.

Yet prosecutors have not criminally charged any single school official or teacher for their apparent failure to report to the state. Why? Could it be that prosecuting a Catholic bishop yields a bigger "splash" and a higher profile for the region's law enforcement? It is not an unreasonable question.

4. Criminal charges of "failing to report" are rarely executed, and it is even more rare that they are prosecuted. And despite the vehement denials from law enforcement in Kansas City that it has not singled out the Catholic Church, it sure seems like it has.

Missouri law enforcement hardly had to lift a finger in this case. It was the diocese who handed over a flash drive to police – albeit too slowly – with criminal images from Fr. Ratigan's computer.

Without the initiative and actions of Bishop Finn, Father Ratigan could still be in ministry today, and prosecutors would not have charged the criminal priest.

[ADDENDUM: We want to direct readers to an excellent article and summary of the case at Catholic News Agency: "Bishop Finn indictment is legally defective" by Michael Quinlan,
a lawyer in St. Louis for 25 years.]