The legal complaint, filed by the prominent Vatican adversary Jeff Anderson, goes on to assert that “the Diocese and Defendant Bishop Finn concealed the report” – which he is not explicitly said to have ever received – “in order to protect Defendants Ratigan, Bishop Finn, and Diocese from scandal.”
Anderson and the other lawyers also say Bishop Finn conspired to destroy Fr. Ratigan's computer, and erase evidence of a crime, in December 2010 – during the same month that the vicar general was providing police with descriptions of files on the priest's computer.
At a June 3 “listening session” held at St. Thomas More parish, Bishop Finn said he wanted to address these charges, but had been advised against it by his lawyers.
“As much as it pains me to not be able to respond or to explain,” he said, “our diocesan attorneys have counseled me to be patient and to wait for the appropriate time to directly answer to these allegations.”
But Bishop Finn has acknowledged that he did neglect an opportunity to act on suspicions about Fr. Ratigan that came to his attention during a brief conversation in May 2010.
On May 19 of that year – exactly one year before Fr. Ratigan's arrest – Saint Patrick School principal Julie Hess presented Msgr. Murphy with a letter detailing parents' concerns about Fr. Ratigan.
“I seek to fulfill my responsibility as school principal,” she wrote, “in relaying a growing body of parent and teacher concerns regarding Pastor Shawn Ratigan's perceived inappropriate behavior with children.”
“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 brought in sample articles with examples of how Father Shawn's actions fit the profile of a child predator.”
Bishop Finn states that he did not see the letter until it was leaked to the press following Fr. Ratigan's arrest – more than a year after Hess gave it to his vicar general.
Instead, as Bishop Finn explained in a May 27 statement, Msgr. Murphy gave him a “brief verbal summary of the report” and of a “meeting with Shawn Ratigan, which had occurred immediately after the report was received.”
“Msgr. Murphy told me that he had thoroughly discussed these concerns with Shawn Ratigan, and how he was to change his behaviors. Shawn Ratigan expressed both the willingness and the desire to make these changes.”
(Story continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Bishop Finn did not request a copy of Hess' letter in order to survey the priests' reported behavior for himself.
“To the best of my knowledge,” he admitted, “no one on my staff, other than Msgr. Murphy, read the report.”
At that time, Bishop Finn noted, diocesan officials had “no knowledge of any inappropriate photographs or images in Shawn Ratigan's possession.”
But the bishop did not shy away from acknowledging the crucial step he failed to take – when he chose to rely on Msgr. Murphy's summary of the report, and Fr. Ratigan's promises to change.
“Hindsight makes it clear that I should have requested from Msgr. Murphy an actual copy of the report,” said Bishop Finn on May 27. “And, so, I also have to change.”
The Bishop did not see the letter for himself until May 26, when a blogger released a leaked copy of a document which appeared to be Hess' May 2010 report on Fr. Ratigan.