Remove Offending Priests Immediately
What Was the Bishop Thinking?
By Jane Gilgun
*****
Copyright 2011 by Jane Gilgun
See other articles, books, and children’s stories on smashwords.com
by Jane Gilgun that you might enjoy.
*****
Smashwords Edition License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the author's work.
Summary
For the first five months of this year, a Roman Catholic bishop in the United States had in his possession photographs that a priest in his diocese had taken of little girls’ genitals. Thebishop did not remove the priest from his parish and did not report the priest for more than five months. By his inaction, the bishop harmed children and their families in his diocese. He harmed faithful clergy. He also alienated countless people from the Roman Catholic Church and confirmed beliefs that it is better to stay away from church than to go. In his own mind, the bishop may have had good reason for his inaction, but he did not see the whole picture.
This article argues that the bishop and other clergy do not understand sexual abusers of children. Sexual abusers must be removed immediately and permanently from the presence of children. It’s as simple as that, for God’s sake. Next comes the report to the police and possible trial and conviction. Then there are apology, reparation, penitence, and personal and institutional reform.
About the Author
Jane F. Gilgun, Ph.D., LICSW, is a professor and writer who has done research on perpetrators of child sexual abuse and other violent persons for more than 25 years. See Professor Gilgun’s other articles, children’s stories, and books on scribd.com, Kindle, & iBooks.
Remove Offending Priests Immediately
What Was the Bishop Thinking?
For the first five months of 2011, a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church held onto photographs that a priest in his diocese had taken of the genitals of girls, ages 2 to 12, many while they slept. During those months that the bishop had the photos, the priest had unlimited access to girls and boys. Families in his parish had no idea that the priest had sexual interests in children. So, they invited him into their homes and allowed him access to their children.
“All those parishioners just feel betrayed because we knew nothing,” said a member of the priest’s former parish. “We were welcoming this guy into our homes, asking him to come bless this or that.” Parishioners were outraged that the bishop, Robert Finn of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph in Missouri, USA, allowed Shawn Ratigan to continue his usual priestly duties when the bishop had photos that showed the priest’s sexual interests in girls. In May of this year, Bishop Finn gave the photos to police. He did not explain why he waited more than five months.
A computer technician found the photos on the priest’s laptop in December 2010 and handed them over to the diocese that day. The next day, the priest attempted suicide by running his motorcycle in a closed garage. He survived. He left a note of apology to the children, their families, and his church for his sexual interests in girls.
What Was the Bishop Thinking?
What was Bishop Finn thinking? It’s only fair to assume that he thought he was doing the right thing. He decided it was best to wait months to report the photographs to police and not to remove the priest from contact with children. That he made this decision points to a need for more education of the clergy in the Roman Catholic Church and probably in other religious institutions, too, about sexual abusers of children.
Bishop Finn failed to protect children. He did the priest no favors by his inaction. The priest needed someone to rein him in. Bishop Finn failed to do that. Mr. Ratigan was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, attacking the lambs. Bishop Finn knew this.
I would have thought that Bishop Finn already had the kind of education he needs to protect the children under his care and also to watch over the priests in his diocese. I would think that his vocation and education as a priest and his consecration as a bishop would be enough. In addition, three years ago, he settled a $10 million lawsuit with 47 survivors of clergy abuse. He agreed to several preventive measures, including the commitment to report to police immediately any clergy or other church people suspected of sexual activity toward children.
Why didn’t he do what he had promised to do? Why didn’t he report Mr. Ratigan immediately? Why didn’t he protect the children? Why didn’t he remove Mr. Ratigan from contact with children?
The Whole Picture
Bishop Finn did not see the whole picture. He could not have thought about the welfare of the children in his diocese. He could not have thought about the soul of Mr. Ratigan. Every act of sexual interest in children not only hurt the children, but damaged Mr. Ratigan’s soul.
[By “soul,” I mean spirit, which in turn means to me openness to the spirit of other people, including children, and all other living thing. Openness to the spirit also means love and desire to promote the well-being of others and in times of threat to protect the well-being of others. Every thought or act of sexual interest in children damages the soul/human spirit of those who think or act that way, no matter what they think they are doing. The damage to others is blazingly obvious. Bishops and other priests are official and public in their duties to promote well-being of others and protect threats to well-being. They have made a public pledge to promote and protect. The rest of us have the same obligation because we are human beings but we have not make public pledges.]
During his months of inaction, Bishop Finn could not have thought of the damage he was causing not only to the people of his diocese, but nationally and globally. For many, Bishop Finn’s inaction was once again evidence that the Roman Catholic Church protects predators and throws children to wolves in sheep’s clothing. Bishop Finn could not have thought of the damage his inaction did to priests who respect children and who would never harm them sexually or in any other way.
These are pieces of the picture that Bishop Finn could not have seen. Had he seen these aspects, he would have turned the photos over to police immediately. He would have pulled Mr. Ratigan from his parish immediately and sent him to effective residential treatment. He would have barred Mr. Ratigan permanently from any duties that allow him any contact with children whatsoever.
I cannot account for why Bishop Finn did not see these parts of the picture, or, if he did, why he did not act to protect children, to protect the priest’s soul, to protect faithful priests, to protect the faithful from further alienation from their church, and to protect his church from further harm.
The Bishop Does Not Understand Sexual Abusers
The bishop may have felt sorry for the priest and thought the priest’s suicide attempt was proof of repentance. Mr. Ratigan’s letter of apology may have been heart wrenching to the bishop. The bishop may have talked to the priest, even heard his confession, and gave him absolution. The bishop may have thought Mr. Ratigan was a good and holy man. The Bishop could have been conflicted for many difference reasons. As a result, he may have been unable to make up his mind about when to notify the police.
Maybe the bishop’s bosses ordered him to wait. The bishop does not know that an unjust law or command does not bind. That is a basic principle in Christian ethics and perhaps in all ethical systems.
Bishop Finn may have thought the priest would never again sexually harm children. If he thought this, then he is very much in need of in-depth education about child sexual abusers. Child sexual abusers require external controls. A surprising number want to stop but don’t know how. Mr. Ratigan’s suicide attempt and letter of apology suggest that he was one who did want to stop.
Bishop Finn refused to fulfill the role he had to help the priest control behaviors he most likely wanted to control. Mr. Ratigan needed swift intervention to stop his behaviors. He had to be removed permanently from the presence of children. His suicide attempt could have been a gesture to remove himself, but he may have wanted to spare himself public shame and disgrace. Bishop Finn did not take on the role he had the authority and public commitment to fulfill. Some may say he had a sacred commitment to protect since he is a human being consecrated as a bishop and a public shepherd to his flock.