newjerseynewsroom.com

Monday
Sep 10th

A tale of two priests and two responses to canon law

cross042111_optBY PAT SUMMERS
NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM
COMMENTARY

This week’s news highlighted two different states and two different states of mind within leaders of the American Catholic Church. Both cases involved “canon law” — the body of laws and regulations governing the organization and its members.

In Connecticut, the Archbishop of the Hartford diocese came down hard on Michael DeVito, a priest who last month had participated in his cousin’s same-sex marriage. In Missouri, the bishop of the Kansas City-St. Joseph diocese got a slap on the wrist after being indicted last year on a charge of failing to protect children.

Canon law was cited in both cases. In Connecticut, it gave the archbishop reason for reprimanding the priest, who had worn his Roman collar and done a reading at the wedding, according to the Hartford Courant. Same sex marriages are contrary to Catholic teaching.

In Missouri, the bishop had violated both canon law and civil law in not reporting the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, who was found to have hundreds of images of child pornography on his computer. For five months, Finn had protected and covered up for the priest, who took photographs that included a girl’s “naked vagina, upskirt images and images focused on the crotch,” according to the New York Times.

Nor was this Finn’s first brush with civil and canon law on the subject of child abuse. Only three years ago, he “settled lawsuits with 47 plaintiffs in sexual abuse cases for $10 million and agreed to a list of 19 preventive measures, among them to immediately report anyone suspected of being a pedophile to the law enforcement authorities,” the Times continued.

Seven years before that, U.S. bishops had pledged to report suspected abusers to law enforcement authorities — a policy also recommended last year by the Vatican. Bishop Finn’s failure to report Father Ratigan until after a subordinate did so thus violated a procedure that had been agreed on twice in one decade.

Finn’s violation could have been punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and a jail sentence of up to a year, but earlier this week, he got off with two years of court-supervised probation. A follow-up headline read, “Indicted bishop plans to continue leading diocese,” but just where might the highest ranking U.S. Catholic official to be criminally charged with sheltering an abusive clergyman “lead” his diocese?

The truly ugly and drawn-out child porn case in Missouri makes the Connecticut same-sex wedding case look like a needless show of authority by the archbishop. Apparently a stickler for the rules, any rules, he couldn’t find better things to do than summon Father DeVito for a formal rebuke, telling him his part in the wedding warranted a permanent mark on his record. (That’s so Catholic school.)

 
Comments (1)
1 Monday, 10 September 2012 14:48
M. W. Ryan
I don't believe the Hartford bishop's reprimand of Fr. DeVito for not only attending but also participating in his cousin's gay marriage ceremony while dressed in priest's garb can be compared with or against Bishop Finn's prosecution for failure to report the priest involved in pornography. It's an apples and oranges situation.

Not being privy to the details of the Hartford Bishop's formal rebuke, I can only assume it revolved around the need for priests to uphold the teachings of the Church which, in this case, are that marriage is between a man and a woman. His presence and participation in the ceremony as a Catholic priest would, I believe, fall under the heading of giving scandal, and a "formal rebuke" strikes me as being on the low end of disciplinary measures the bishop could have taken.

As far as Bishop Finn's conviction is concerned, he could have been sentenced to serve time in jail, but he also could have been given no period of probation; the judge struck what he thought was a fair balance between the upper and lower options that were available to him. It seems to me both authorities - the Hartford bishop and the Missouri judge - exercised good judgment.

Add your comment

Your name:
Subject:
Comment:


Follow/join us

Twitter: njnewsroom Linked In Group: 2483509

Hot topics

 

Children can be conned out of inheritance after multiple marriages

BY CAROL ABAYA NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM THE SANDWICH GENERATION Multiple marriages and blended families can mean children get cheated out of money and assets their parent(s) earned and had before the second or third marriage. At the 2012 senior citizens’ law day conference, Lawrence A. Friedman, Bridgewater elder law attorney, said elders need to protect their children of prior marriages from being disinherited. "Even if your spouse’s current will provides for your children, your spouse may change it after you pass away,” he said. In addition to protecting one's child, an appropriate will can minimize N.J. estate taxes, which kick in if assets are over $675,000. At the conference, Cathyanne Pisciotta from North Brunswick discussed guardianship which could be necessary if various legal documents are not signed. Pisciotta said that if a person does not have a durable power of attorney (for financial affairs) and a living will (for medical decisions), anyone else can seek guardianship of that person. An expensive court proceeding is mandatory. And she said, “If one person seeks guardianship, someone else can challenge the appointment. Another relative may seek to be appointed guardian because he/she wants the money and power.”

 

NJNR Press Box

 

Join New Jersey Newsroom.com on Twitter

 

Be a Facebook fan of New Jersey Newsroom.com


**V 2.0**