<div class="header">
<div class="left">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif" alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a>
</div>
<div class="right">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=84de2ffb/98f1fc94&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787510c_nyt5&ad=BOSW_120x60_June13_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fbeastsofthesouthernwild" target="_blank">
<br></a>
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><hr align="left" size="1">
<div class="timestamp">September 7, 2012</div>
<h1>Defying Canon and Civil Laws, Diocese Failed to Stop a Priest</h1>
<h6 class="byline">By
<span>
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/laurie_goodstein/index.html" rel="author" title="More Articles by LAURIE GOODSTEIN"><span>LAURIE GOODSTEIN</span></a></span></h6>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>
On the surface, the Rev. Shawn Ratigan was just the kind of dynamic new
priest that any Roman Catholic bishop would have been happy to put in a
parish. He rode a motorcycle, organized summer mission trips to
Guatemala and joined Bishop Robert W. Finn and dozens of students on a
bus trek to Washington for the “March for Life,” a big annual
anti-abortion rally. </p>
<p>
But in December 2010, Bishop Finn got some disturbing news: Father
Ratigan had just tried to commit suicide by running his motorcycle in a
closed garage. The day before, a computer technician had discovered
sexually explicit photographs of young girls on Father Ratigan’s laptop,
including one of a toddler with her diaper pulled away to expose her
genitals. </p>
<p>
The decisions that Bishop Finn and his second-in-command in the <a title="The diocese’s Web site." href="http://www.diocese-kcsj.org/">Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph</a>, Msgr. Robert Murphy, made about Father Ratigan over the next five months ultimately led to <a title="Times article." href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/us/kansas-city-bishop-convicted-of-shielding-pedophile-priest.html?hp">the conviction of the bishop</a>
in circuit court on Thursday on one misdemeanor count of failing to
report suspected child abuse. It was the first time a Catholic bishop in
the United States had been held accountable in criminal court in the
nearly three decades since the priest sexual abuse scandals first came
to light. </p>
<p>
Both Bishop Finn and Monsignor Murphy, as ministers, were required by
law to report suspected child abuse to the civil authorities. But they
were also required to report under policies that the American bishops
put in place 10 years ago at the height of the scandal — policies that
now hold the force of canon law. </p>
<p>
This is an account of how, as recently as 2011, in violation of both
church and civil laws, a bishop and church officials failed to stop a
priest from pursuing his obsession with taking pornographic photographs
of young girls. Eventually it was Monsignor Murphy, not Bishop Finn, who
turned in Father Ratigan. </p>
<p>
The witnesses never told their stories in court. The verdict was decided
by a judge in a bench trial that lasted less than an hour and a half.
But the facts of the case are known and even agreed upon by both the
prosecution and the defense — summed up in a nine-page stipulation of
testimony that contained details about the case that were not public
until they were submitted to the judge on Thursday. Many details were
also revealed in what is known as the Graves report, an independent
investigation commissioned by the diocese last year and conducted by a
former United States attorney, Todd P. Graves. </p>
<p>
“I truly regret, “ Bishop Finn said in court on Thursday, “and am sorry for the hurt that these events have caused.” </p>
<p>
The bishop had advance warning about Father Ratigan, well before
pornography was discovered on the priest’s laptop. Julie Hess, the
principal of the parochial school, next door to St. Patrick Parish where
Father Ratigan served, had sent a memorandum in May of 2010 to the
diocese, which said: </p>
<p>
“Parents, staff members, and parishioners are discussing his actions and
whether or not he may be a child molester. They have researched
pedophilia on the Internet and took in sample articles with examples of
how Father Shawn’s actions fit the profile of a child predator.” </p>
<p>
Children in the diocese’s schools are taught about appropriate
boundaries between adults and children in an abuse-prevention education
program called Circle of Grace. Ms. Hess said that while she was
inclined to believe that Father Ratigan’s behavior amounted to nothing
more than “boundary violations,” other adults were alarmed about
specific events: Father Ratigan had put a girl on his lap on a bus trip,
attempted to “friend” an eighth grader on Facebook, and had an
inappropriate “peer to peer” relationship with a fifth-grade girl. On a
children’s group excursion to Father Ratigan’s house, parents spotted
hand towels shaped to look like dolls’ clothes, and a pair of girls’
panties in a planter in his yard. </p>
<p>
The bishop told Father Ratigan in June 2010 that “we have to take this
seriously.” But the testimony showed that the bishop, too, perceived the
concerns simply as “boundary issues.” </p>
<p>
Nine days before Christmas, Father Ratigan took his sluggish laptop to
Ken Kes, a computer technician on contract with St. Patrick Parish, for
repairs. Mr. Kes was startled to find photographs of young girls’ torsos
and crotches. When he saw the one of the naked toddler, he took the
laptop to the parish’s deacon. Mr. Kes is described in the testimony as
“being so upset that his hands were shaking to the point he couldn’t
open the laptop.” </p>
<p>
The deacon immediately took the laptop to Monsignor Murphy at the
chancery offices. He gave it to Julie Creech, a technology staff member
at the diocese. Ms. Creech found “hundreds of photographs,” according to
the testimony, many taken on playgrounds, under tables or in one case,
while a girl was sleeping. Many pictures did not show faces — only
close-ups of crotches. Ms. Creech wrote a report for her superiors
noting that only four or five of the hundreds of pictures appeared to
have been downloaded from the Internet: “the rest appeared to have been
taken with a personal camera.” </p>
<p>
Nevertheless, even before getting the laptop, Monsignor Murphy had
already consulted with a Kansas City Police Department captain who
served on the diocese’s Independent Review Board. The Graves report said
that the captain, Rick Smith, recalled being told by Monsignor Murphy
that the diocese had found only one nude photograph, that it was of a
member of Father Ratigan’s family, and that it was not a sexual pose.
Monsignor Murphy said he did not remember telling the captain those
things. Their recollections also differed on what the captain had said
about whether the photograph constituted pornography. </p>
<p>
The next day, Dec. 17, 2010, Father Ratigan attempted suicide. He left
messages apologizing to his family for “the harm caused to the children
or you.” When he survived, he was sent first to a hospital, and then to
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist in Pennsylvania selected by Bishop
Finn. The bishop testified that he was told by the psychiatrist that
Father Ratigan was not a risk to children, and had been falsely accused
by the school principal. </p>
<p>
During this period, two women on staff in diocesan headquarters were
urging their superiors to turn Father Ratigan in. Rebecca Summers, then
the director of communications, told Monsignor Murphy to call the
police, according to the testimony. And Julie Creech, the technology
employee, said in a deposition in a related civil suit that she went to
see Bishop Finn in his office to make sure he understood what she had
seen on the laptop. </p>
<p>
“I really got the feeling that maybe he didn’t understand,” Ms. Creech
said in the deposition. “I don’t think he saw what I saw.” </p>
<p>
The bishop assigned Father Ratigan to serve as a chaplain to the
Franciscan Sisters of the Holy Eucharist, in Independence, Mo. He placed
seven restrictions on the priest, including not using computers and
avoiding all contact with children. But the bishop allowed him, on a
“trial” basis, to celebrate Mass for youth groups at the prayer center
that the sisters ran. </p>
<p>
Over the next five months, Father Ratigan, who is now 46 attended a
sixth-grader’s birthday party, co-celebrated a child’s confirmation,
communicated with children on his Facebook page, hosted an Easter egg
hunt and attended a parade, the testimony recounts. Invited to dinner at
the home of parishioners, he was caught taking photographs, under the
table, up their daughter’s skirt, according to a federal indictment of
Father Ratigan. </p>
<p>
Neither the bishop nor any church official told church members or Father
Ratigan’s large extended family — which includes many children — that
the priest had been ordered to stay away from children, Darron
Blankenship, a brother-in-law of Father Ratigan and a police officer who
has handled child abuse cases, said in an interview on Friday. </p>
<p>
“For somebody that was under restrictions, he had free rein,” Officer
Blankenship said. “He just went and did what he wanted.” </p>
<p>
Some family members had heard that Father Ratigan’s laptop had contained
pornography, Officer Blankenship said, but they assumed it was adult
pornography taken off the Internet — upsetting but not surprising, they
thought, for a man who had become a priest and had to adjust to celibacy
later in life. </p>
<p>
Bishop Finn and Monsignor Murphy learned about some of Father Ratigan’s
violations of his restrictions. “I will have to tell him,” Bishop Finn
wrote in an e-mail to the psychiatrist, “that he must not attend these
children’s gatherings, even if there are parents present. I had been
very clear about this with him already.” </p>
<p>
The testimony filed in court on Thursday says that because the bishop
trusted Father Ratigan to respect the restrictions, he was never
monitored and the community was never informed. </p>
<p>
On May 11, 2011, while Bishop Finn was out of town, Monsignor Murphy
again contacted Captain Smith at the Police Department and told him that
the diocese had indeed found not one, but hundreds of photographs of
little girls. A week later, Father Ratigan was arrested for possession
of <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/child_pornography/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about child pornography." class="meta-classifier">child pornography</a>. He was convicted in August and is awaiting sentencing. </p>
<p>
Bishop Finn and the diocese were indicted by a grand jury in October
2011. Monsignor Murphy was given immunity for cooperating with the
prosecution. He testified that he turned Father Ratigan in because he
had grown concerned that he was truly a pedophile. The monsignor said
that when the bishop learned he had turned in Father Ratigan, “It seemed
he was angry.” </p>
<p>
After Father Ratigan was arrested, Bishop Finn met with his priests.
Asked why Father Ratigan was not removed earlier, the bishop replied,
according to the testimony, that he had wanted “to save Father Ratigan’s
priesthood” and that he had understood that Father Ratigan’s problem
was “only pornography.” </p>
<div class="articleCorrection">
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br><br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br><br>