Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
September 18, 2012


Way Out of Bounds

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Although the ongoing violence in the Middle East and the response to it by both President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero and his hapless opponent, former Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor Willard Mitt Romney, who has been pretty silent on Obama's police-state tactics against the man who is claiming some degree of responsibility for a supposed movie that, we have been told by our minders in the civil state and their paid stooges in the media, is "causing" unrest in the Middle East (then again, Midget Mitt has been pretty silent about the Fast and Furious cover-up and ObamaCare and Obama's misuse of executive orders to circumvent both the intent of laws passed by Congress, as he did on immigration three months ago, and seeking to make mandatory matters that are the sole purview of the Congress under the United States Constitution), require a bit more attention on this little-viewed website, it is time for a brief bit of commentary on the conviction of the conciliar "bishop" of Kansas City-Saint Joseph, Missouri, Robert Finn, on Thursday, September 6, 2012, for his failing to report to the civil authorities the horrible moral crimes of a "Father" Shawn Ratigan that also a violation of civil law. Although conciliar "bishops" have "skated" because of prosecutorial leniency and/or because of the expiration of statutes of limitations, "Bishop" Finn is the first "bishop" to indicted and thus is the first to be convicted. (For a partial list of those who have "skated," see my first commentary on the Finn case: Nearly A Decade After Law Was Broken.)

 Here is a review of the facts that led to "Bishop" Finn's conviction in a bench trial (trial by a judge who hears the facts and then pronounces a verdict) twelve days ago:

A Jackson County grand jury has indicted Bishop Robert Finn and the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph on misdemeanor charges of failure to report child abuse.

The charges, announced at a news conference today, make Finn — leader of the 134,000-member diocese — the highest-ranking Catholic official in the nation to face criminal prosecution in a child sexual abuse case.

The charges stemmed from the long-simmering controversy surrounding Father Shawn Ratigan, who is facing child pornography charges in Clay County and federal court.

“This is a significant charge,” said Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker. “To my knowledge, a charge like this has not been leveled before.”

In a statement, the diocese said its lawyers entered a plea of not guilty for the diocese. According to Gerald Handley and J.R. Hobbs, lawyers for Bishop Finn, the bishop also entered a plea of not guilty

“Bishop Finn denies any criminal wrongdoing and has cooperated at all stages with law enforcement, the grand jury, the prosecutor’s office, and the Graves Commission,” said Handley. “We will continue our efforts to resolve this matter.”

The charge against Finn carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. The diocese faces only the fine.

Word of the charges quickly rippled through the Catholic world, drawing surprise.

“For a bishop to be indicted is absolutely extraordinary,” said the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University and author of “Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church.”

“This is a first. And in terms of the Catholic Church, this is an extraordinary move which is going to signal that the times have changed. Neither people nor government are going to put up with any kind of activity that looks like a cover-up.”

Baker emphasized that the pursuit of the case was the result of a grand jury investigation.

“I’ve done my best to make sure that this was a fair process,” she said. “This has nothing — nothing — to do with the Catholic faith. This is about the facts of the case, nothing more. This is about protecting children.”

Baker said the grand jury issued a sealed indictment on Oct. 6, but Finn was out of the country and did not return until late Thursday. He and lawyers representing the diocese appeared in court shortly before the news conference and entered their pleas, Baker said.

Finn and the diocese had reasonable cause to believe that the Ratigan may have abused a child but did not report it to authorities between Dec. 16, 2010, and May 11, 2011, the indictment alleged. Evidence of that concern, the indictment said, was previous suspicions about Ratigan’s behavior around children and the discovery in December 2010 of hundreds of photos of children on Ratigan’s laptop.

Those photos included images of a child’s naked vagina and upskirt pictures focusing on the child’s crotch.

Finn and the diocese also must have had concerns about Ratigan’s conduct because they had restricted him from being around children after the laptop images were discovered, according to the charges.

A diocesan official reported Ratigan to police on May 11.

State law includes clergy as those who are required to report child abuse when they suspect it.

The grand jury did not charge Monsignor Robert Murphy, Finn’s vicar general and second in command, who handled much of the diocese’ response to the Ratigan case as it developed in the winter and the spring.

Baker declined to comment on Murphy’s role in the case. Like Finn, Murphy has cooperated with authorities investigating the case and appeared at least twice before local grand juries. Jackson County court records also list him as the highest ranking cleric available to testify for prosecutors.

Two local parishioners were saddened and troubled by news of the charges.

Matthew Copple of Gladstone, whose child attends St. Patrick School, said he was troubled.

“The man may have been guilty of incompetence and negligence but I do not see him as a criminal,” Copple said. “That seems wrong to me. Let’s punish the people who committed the deed. I don’t see the need for the bishop to have a criminal record or be guilty of a crime.”

Mike Murtha, attends St. John Francis Regis for 19 years, said he would continue to support Finn.

“It is sad that it has come to that,” Murtha said. “He has admitted to his failings and we will continue to pray for him.”

The Jackson County grand jury began meeting after federal authorities filed child pornography charges against Ratigan this year. According to the findings of the diocese’s own recent investigation, church officials knew for five months about troubling photos of young girls on Ratigan’s computer and did not formally notify police or state child abuse authorities. Under Missouri law, clergy must report any suspected child abuse.

Finn testified before the Jackson County grand jury on Sept. 16. At least five top diocesan administrators or advisers were called to testify before the panel, with Finn being the highest church official to appear.

After testifying, Finn told The Kansas City Star that “we’re doing the best we can to cooperate with law enforcement.”

Among those testifying before the Jackson County panel was Murphy, who had come under fire for the way he handled the Ratigan case. Others who testified include diocesan spokeswoman Rebecca Summers and a Kansas City police captain whose opinion diocesan officials sought on a photo that Ratigan allegedly took. The captain also serves on the diocese’s review board.

Diocesan officials came under sharp criticism for failing to take immediate action when concerns were raised about Ratigan’s behavior.

In May 2010, the principal of a Catholic school complained to the diocese about what she described as Ratigan’s inappropriate actions around children. Other than counseling Ratigan to moderate his conduct, however, his church supervisors took little substantial action.

In December, diocesan officials found what prosecutors later alleged was child pornography on Ratigan’s computer. The diocese said it contacted a police officer and described “one of the more disturbing images” from Ratigan’s computer, asking whether it constituted child porn, and the officer said it did not. Police later confirmed that the officer was Capt. Richard Smith, but said that he was told only about one photo and was not made aware that other, more graphic images were stored on Ratigan’s computer.

The church relieved Ratigan of his duties as pastor of St. Patrick Catholic Church in the Northland and assigned him to live at an Independence mission house. While there, according to a federal indictment, he allegedly attempted to take pornographic photos of a 12-year-old girl.

Ratigan was charged in Clay County in May with three counts of possession of child pornography. Federal grand jurors later indicted him on 13 counts of production, attempted production and possession of child porn.

After Ratigan’s arrest, Finn publicly apologized for his handling of the case.

Last month, a diocese-commissioned investigation led by former U.S. Attorney Todd Graves found that diocesan leaders failed to follow their own policies and procedures in responding to reports of child sexual abuse.

The investigation found that “individuals in positions of authority reacted to events in ways that could have jeopardized the safety of children in diocesan parishes, schools and families.”

Graves said that the investigation “identified shortcomings, inaction and confusing procedures, but we believe Bishop Finn and the leadership of the diocese understand the gravity of the issues and take these recommendations seriously.”

The diocese released the findings in a 141-page report compiled by Graves’ law firm. Finn called the recommendations “comprehensive, thoughtful and detailed.”

“We understand their importance and are focusing on them so we establish clear, strong and unequivocal procedures for all diocesan personnel and volunteers that ensure the safety of our children today and into the future,” the bishop said in a statement at the time.

A second grand jury — this one in Clay County — also has been hearing testimony in recent weeks that focuses on child sexual abuse issues. Finn and Murphy spent several hours testifying before that panel on Sept. 27. (Bishop Finn and diocese are indicted.)


"Bishop" Finn, who is a member of the "hear no evil, see no evil, report no evil" Opus Dei (see Not The Work of God), has apologized for his "mistakes." However, he does not believe that he has committed a crime or that he should have been convicted of a misdemeanor at his trial. He believes that "Father" Ratigan's behavior was a matter of what he called "boundary issues." See for yourselves:

“I truly regret, “ Bishop Finn said in court on Thursday, “and am sorry for the hurt that these events have caused.”

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:

“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.”

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.

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.” (In Abuse Case, Conciliar Church Failed to Stop Priest.)


Pray tell, what's a "boundary issue" and why in the world should children have to be taught such things in in the context of what is thought to be a Catholic school? God has given us an inherent sense of what is appropriate and is not. It is part of the very nature of the innocence of a child to recoil with discomfort when he is faced with even the approach of behavior that is out of the ordinary. And this is precisely why pioneers in the explicit classroom instruction of children in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments such as Mary Calderone, the founder of the Sex Education and Information Council of the United States (S.I.E.C.U.S.) who worked closely with the late "Bishop James T. McHugh (see Mrs. Randy Engel, The McHugh Chronicles and her definitive Sex Education - The Final Plague), sought to implement and then propagate it. The pioneers and their descendants specifically wanted to break down the natural psychological barriers of resistance that children have to any mention of matters pertaining to that which is proper and licit in the married state and the married state alone.

The reality is, of course, that those children who have made it out of the most dangerous place in the world our times, their own mothers' wombs, alive are immersed in a culture that is filled with incentives to sin against Holy Purity. Boys and girls are dressed in the most immodest and indecent clothing imaginable. Their tender eyes are bombarded and their ears are filled with sights and sounds that are straight from the devil himself. Indeed, most children today spend long hours in front of some kind of video screen, including the old-fashioned device called the television, where they are permitted almost unrestricted access to rotten programming and "music videos" that are "performed" with suggestive gestures and movements. Every single bit of them breaks down a child's natural psychological resistance in order to make them willing "learners" about such matters in the classroom even though the "instructors" will never admit that their "instruction" gives children incentives to "experiment" with what they have been taught.

This is why most children today would not be confused by the behavior of predators, who seek to ingratiate themselves to their victims by "grooming" them with presents and gifts and to "push the boundaries" of a what a child knows inherently to be wrong, dangerous and displeasing to God so that their victims become "comfortable" with such "expressions" of "affection" and "devotion" that are thoroughly inappropriate and completely immoral.

"Father" Shawn Ratigan not only engaged in behavior that sought to exploit the "openness" of children today to matters that pertain exclusively to the married state for the procreation and education of children (see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way, Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change; yes, I am completely unbent on this matter of moral truth as I am on the supposed "moral obligation" that we have to participate in farces of naturalism that agitate souls and attempt to convince people that "something" is being done to "improve" the world or to keep some "greater evil" from making things worse--Want to Reconsider the Lesser of Two Evils Business, Folks? as  moral principles need to be applied in concrete circumstances in an exercise of what is known as prudential judgment), he acted surreptitiously to cater to his mortally sinful voyeurism that is beneath the dignity of any man, no less one who considers himself to be an "alter Christus" who has the power to bring the Divine Redeemer down from Heaven in Holy Mass ("Father"  Ratigan is not a priest and the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service is not a Mass).

What kind of "boundary" could possibly justify the behavior that was described in report prepared by attorneys for the Diocese of Kansas City-Saint Joseph (as found in  a commentary in the "ultra-progressive" Catholic journal, Commonweal)?

In the hundreds of photos it became obvious the viewer is focusing on the female pelvic region. It is also obvious that some photos were taken from a camera positioned under a table in which girls were sitting in their swimsuits or under playground equipment in which girls were climbing above. There is also a photo with a little girl sleeping and someone has changed the location of her hand and clothing while she sleeps to take the photos. It appears that 4‐5 photos were downloaded while the others seem to have been taken from a personal camera. (Bill Donohue stands by his man.)

This is a "boundary issue"? This is sick. Sick. "Bishop" Finn did not recognize this as being sick even though this very description was given to him by his diocesan attorneys? This did not set off alarm bells and flashing red lights?

Yet it is that Dr. William Donohue, the President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, has risen to defend "Bishop" Finn in spite of this grotesque behavior, which promoted the Commonweal blogger to explain:

These are staged photos. They could not be taken without engaging in a form of sexual abuse. Who moved the child? How? This is why the Vatican amended its guidelines to include possession of child pornography in its definition of sexual abuse. Why doesn’t Bill Donohue understand this? (Bill Donohue stands by his man.)

I first met Dr. Donohue back in the late-1980s when we taping a few radio programs for Father Kenneth Baker's Views of the News series (then hosted by a fine Catholic layman by the name of Paul Reynolds) when he was a sociology professor in Pennsylvania. Some years later, around 1995, if I recall correctly, I served as the dinner speaker at a Long Island chapter of Catholics United for the Faith (an organization that grew out of a national Wanderer Forum in the late-1960s and was organized in part to oppose classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments)ceremony around 1995 at which he was presented the "Man of the Year Award" (my talk centered on the evils of such instruction). Given this background, permit me to address my former colleague in the Society of Catholic Social Scientists in a familiar way even though I have not seen him since 2003: "Bill, you are way out of bounds seeking to defend 'Bishop' Finn." Way, way out out of bounds.

As the world has been deprived of the well-spring of Sanctifying and Actual Graces, which are what made it possible for a semblance or veneer of social order and even good common sense on the natural level to prevail even among unbelievers in many instances, as a result of the sacramental barrenness of the conciliar liturgical rite, most men walking amongst us today live lives of unrepentant sin. They are unaware of this. However, just as a man may have diabetes or cancer or heart disease without knowing it, thus suffering the effects of the disease in his body without being aware of what is happening to him, so is it the case that most men alive today live in states of sin, objectively speaking, and thus have a lessened capacity to use their intellects and wills even on the level of natural reason unaided by grace and without reference to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural. Thus it is that men must "reinvent the wheel" continuously to try to "create" artificial structures of human relationships to "define" what is appropriate behavior and what it is not. Most Catholics, of course, have lost the sensus  Catholicus and thus follow the high priests an priestesses of the world uncritically to "find out" how to act in a "socially acceptable" way.

The corporate world has created an "alternative universe" filled with various structures and programs that are meant to "guide" men infallibly. It is almost as though they have replicated, albeit perversely, the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law so as to compel men to act in accord with the currently prevailing social strictures.

Mrs. Randy Engel, the founder of the U.S. Coalition for Life and the author of many books and articles, including The Rite of Sodomy, was  gracious enough to give me permission to provide you with a description of what has become known as "boundary issues" as found the Journal of Community Corrections:

Imposing on, attributing to or confusing your feelings, thoughts, or judgments with someone else's, especially in certain areas or topics.

My mother tells me to put on a sweater when she's cold, or to stop eating when she's full, my husband always speaks in the "Royal We," and my best friend criticizes my values - these are boundary issues. (Boundary Issues in Professional/Client Relationships.)

Yes, corporate America has had to create courses to "teach" what should be known inherently as part of the sensus Catholicus, filling the texts with "politically correct" strictures that consider al mention of objective moral truths, no less of Divine Revelation, "out of bounds."

The counterfeit church of concilairism, reflecting its "openness to the world" and its falsehoods, has bought into this ideology, building it into programs that are taught to presbyters, teachers and children, doing so with an special application to "touching" and expressions of "affection." Uncertainty and ambiguity are thus created as to what is said to constitute a "violation" of "boundaries." All manner of investigations conducted by mole men search for "clues" as to what is said to be an alleged "boundary violation" that one blessed with the sensus Catholicus would recognize in a heartbeat was evil and without any justification whatsoever.

What "Father" Shawn Ratigan did was sick. It was grotesque. "Bishop" Finn had something to "consider" and "ponder" when presented with the images on Ratigan's computer? Such is the morally fuzzy, unclear, uncertain world of conciliarism. Such is the world of unreality. Such is a world that is way out of bounds with God and very much in league in the adversary.

The ideology-driven slogan called "boundary issues" is rife throughout the conciliar structures. It is not an anomaly in the Diocese of Kansas City-Saint Joseph, Missouri:

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia said Monday that it had suspended a former Northeast Philadelphia pastor over a claim that he sexually abused a minor, four months after church officials publicly cleared him of another misconduct accusation.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput in May declared the Rev. Michael Chapman suitable to return to active ministry. The 56-year-old cleric was preparing to resume working as a priest when the archdiocese received a new accusation that Chapman had sexually abused a minor approximately 30 years ago, the archdiocese said Monday.

Church officials passed the accusation to law enforcement and halted Chapman's reinstatement, according to Donna Farrell, a spokeswoman for the archbishop.

"Father Chapman had never actually returned to active public ministry, did not have access to children, and was not residing in a parish at any time since the May 4 announcement," Farrell said.

The archdiocese's investigation into the allegation continues, she said.

News that Chapman was again on administrative leave was announced last weekend at his old parish, Ascension of Our Lord in Kensington, where he served as pastor between 2001 and 2011.

What had been excitement among some in the neighborhood about his possible return melted again into disappointment.

Eileen Harvey, who was married at the church and whose children and grandchildren attended its school, said parishioners were sickened by the allegations but hopeful about their former pastor.

"We all loved him," Harvey said Monday. "I would love for him to come back if everything was cleared."

Chapman was among two dozen area priests placed on leave in March 2011 while church officials reexamined past allegations of misconduct.

Chaput permanently removed seven of those priests from after finding the allegations credible. Six others, including Chapman, were reinstated. Another died before the investigation against him was complete.

In July, the Rev. Andrew McCormick became the first priest on leave to be charged with criminal sex abuse. McCormick, the former pastor of Sacred Heart parish in Bridgeport, Montgomery County, is accused of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old altar boy at a Philadelphia rectory in 1997.

The rest of the cases are pending.

Officials have not disclosed the details of the accusations against the suspended priests except to say they range from child sexual abuse to "boundary violations," actions that include inappropriate comments, touching or conduct that could be considered grooming of abuse victims.

The claims also involve conduct that typically cannot be prosecuted because it falls outside the state's criminal statute of limitations. Instead, an independent review board investigates the claims and makes recommendations to the archbishop.

The first allegation against Chapman involved boundary violations, church officials said. (Archdiocese suspends pastor over abuse allegation. Thanks again to Mrs. Engel for providing me with this news item, which was published today, September 18, 2012, the Feast of Saint Joseph Cupertino, in the Philadelphia Inquirer.)

Inappropriate behavior that could be considered as the "grooming of abuse victims"? Could be considered? Excuse me, red lights and alarm bells should go off when a man who believes himself to be a priest has engaged in protracted tight, affectionate hugs and/or has tightly squeezed parts of a man or child's posterior anatomy. Professional predators who engage in such behavior do indeed carefully select emotionally vulnerable, trusting, credulous children or young men in order to groom them to break down their natural barriers of resistance against increasingly greater encroachments upon their persons, thus creating such ambivalent feelings in their prey that victims actually feel conflicted when these matters are brought to public life. Those who seek to minimize such egregious conduct as nothing aberrant, no matter where these enablers fall across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide in this time of apostasy and betrayal, as nothing extraordinary or aberrant or dangerous will have to answer to God in the face for failing to serve as a true friend to one who is predisposed to such behavior. I can assure such people that no priest raised as saint to the altars of Holy Mother Church ever saw such behavior as anything other than immoral and inexcusable.

To let human respect stand in the way of discharging the Spiritual Works of Mercy is a grave crime before God and it leaves the souls of sinners without the necessary correction that is needed to start the process of reforming their lives. "Bishop" Robert Finn wanted to act in a "fatherly" way with "Father" Ratigan, thus refusing to disclose to the police the large number of pornographic images of children found on the man's computer, claiming that only one such image had been found. A "boundary violation"? A "boundary violation"? I'll tell what this is: an unspeakable violation of the laws of God and of men that truly shocks the conscience at a time when one has thought he has heard every sick excuse imaginable for clerical abusers.

Attorney James Bendell, who has worked on numerous cases involving clergy abuse, wrote to me after this commentary was posted to explain the indefensible "boundary violations" excuse goes back to the 1990s, that it is not something newly minted by the conciliar authorities:

In my Seattle molestation case, I deposed the priest who was head of vocations under [Archbishop Raymond] Hunthausen, even though he had given nighttime rubs to boys at a CYO camp (including rubbing their buttocks). He was sent to Southdown [Institute, located in Aurora, Ontario, Canada] for "treatment." When I asked him about their diagnosis, I recall him talking about "boundary" issues. That was in the 1990s, so this word has been around for a while. I think the bottom line is that homosexuality is not abnormal as long as you recognize proper boundaries. Very sick. (Mr. Bendell provided a link to a story about the priest, Father David Jaeger, that appeared on the Seattle Catholic website a decade ago now: The Strange Case of Father Jaeger. The article contained bold words by the then newly-installed conciliar "archbishop" of Milwaukee, Timothy Michael Dolan, about how predatory clergymen would not be protected under his stewardship. Bold words. Bold words that were not carried out during his six and one-half years in Milwaukee before his transfer to New York in 2009. See Examining Timothy Dolan's Record.)


Very sick. Very, very sick.

To make matters even worse than all of this in the case of "Father" Shawn Ratigan, "Bishop" Finn's attorneys are appealing his conviction on the misdemeanor count twelve days ago by listing a number of their possible defenses, including the assertion that the Federal laws defining child pornography are "overbroad by prohibiting constitutionally protected conduct" and thus he, Finn, had no civil crime to report to the police:

Lawyers representing the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph recently responded formally to a federal civil lawsuit filed by a purported victim of the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, who now faces child pornography charges.

Buried deep in the filing, under the heading “Affirmative Defenses,” was this statement: “18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252A, 2255, 2256 and 2259 violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the statutes are overbroad by prohibiting constitutionally protected conduct.”

In English, that means the diocese’s defense lawyers announced that the church could, at some point, argue that federal laws banning the production of child pornography are too broad and that at least some of Ratigan’s alleged conduct was constitutionally protected.

Not sure that’s ever going to happen, but it’s worth chewing on. (Mark Morris, Kansas City Star.)

"Constitutionally protected conduct"? 

Why in the world would Robert Finn seek to have the Diocese of Kansas City-Saint Joseph go through all of the expense and legal paperwork to file a notice of appeal in the first place, no less to have attorneys keep open the option of claiming that child pornography might be "constitutionally protected conduct"?

The answer is simple. Very simple. Elementary.

Money. It's all about the money. The Diocese of Kansas City-Saint Joseph does not want to be held legally liable for monetary damages in the event civil lawsuits are filed against it by parents of the children whose images were photographed by "Father" Shawn Ratigan. It's all about the money, certainly not about the protection of souls.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, of course, will not remove "Bishop" Finn. He has taken no punitive action against any "bishop" who has suborned clerical predators. How can he do so? He has done the same thing (see among many others, Of Worldwide Scope, Always Evading Root Causes, Swinging Clubs To Protect The Club, Surely He Jests, "Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts, More Than A Matter of Legality, Audio Presentation: Scandal In a Church of Apostasy.WMA, "Fall Guys" Aren't Usually "Stand-Up Guys", Apologizing to Everyone Save For God Himself, Not Going Down With the Conciliar Ship, Touchy, Touchy, Chastisements Under Which We Must Save Our Souls, part two, Not So "Deplorable" After All, and Future Home of the "Reform of the Reform", Ratzinger's Revolution Unravels, part two, Nearly A Decade After Law Was Broken.)

Nobody wanted to know about the clerical abuse scandals when they were reported by The Wanderer and the National Catholic Reporter in the 1990s. This writer took a great deal of abuse from Catholics for having written articles about such corrupt figures as "Bishop" Daniel Leo Ryan in the pages of The Wanderer, something that comes with the territory and must be expected when light must be shone of the actions of cowardly, craven men whose only refuge is strike out at those who are holding the light on them for their own eternal good and to make sure that possible victims in the future are forewarned about them and their predatory ways by name.)

All of the mocking and criticism was for naught. The scandals broke into full view within the Providence of God, and dioceses and religious communities are still paying out huge sums of money to pay compensatory and punitive damages as a result. Mrs. Randy Engel's Rite of Sodomy, which must not be read by the young or by those who have no need to know the graphic details of the horrors of perverse ways, documents the typical patterns of denial, self-righteouness, outrage and self-justification used to put the blame on accusers and upon those who are seeking to prevent future souls from being harmed by predatory self-seekers who are on the path to Hell itself if the do not repent before they die.

Yes, it is easier to play the fictional Sergeant Hans Schultz and to see and know and hear "noooooothing" than it is to tell predators at the first instant they are caught in anything approaching perverse actions that they are risking the very fires of eternal damnation by seeking to seduce others in their own perverse ways as they are removed from all positions of pastoral responsibility.

Let's put it to you this way: Padre Pio, Saint John Mary Vianney and Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, to name just a few holy priests, would not have needed any kind of "procedures" to deal with the behavior exhibited by "Father" Shawn Ratigan. No Catholic seeks refuge in bureaucratic procedures to seek to "determine" if something is a manifestation of an utter ability to serve publicly as an alter Christus. The facts were never in contention in the Ratigan case. The photographs existed. They were on his computer. To contend that this was a "difficult" matter is completely out of bounds as the only thing that was difficult for "Bishop" Finn was how to restore an unfit minister to active duty without considering the fact that his behavior made such a reassignment impossible to consider.

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, there has been a wholesale loss of the sensus Catholicus in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. After all, those who have no sense of the horror of the personal sin committed by offending God in matters of the First and Second Commandments by engaging in "inter-religious prayer" services and esteeming the symbols and places of false worship will have no sense of the horror of personal sin in such sordid and sick matters that preoccupied the mind and the time of "Father" Shawn Ratigan.

We must always understand and never lose sight of the simple fact that an examination of our own consciences will reveal that at least some of us have given scandal to others by our public words and actions. The mind does not want fathom the horrible truth that one or more souls might have lost the Faith or have been turned away from any real consideration of converting to It by things we may have said or done to them or in their presence, which is why we need to pray to Saint Mary Magdalene and Saint Augustine and Saint Camillus de Lellis, Saint Mary of Egypt and Saint Margaret of Cortona and even Saint John of God, who had a rough patch in his life, that our prayers and penances and mortifications and sacrifices offered to God through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary will help to win back the souls who we may have scandalized.

It is a terrible, terrible thing to reckon with the fact that one might be responsible for the loss of a single soul. It is thus the case that that while decrying the insensitivity to the loss of souls demonstrated by the conciliar "bishops" and their "pope, we must never lose sight of how we might have demonstrated this insensitivity in our own lives. The loss of the Faith in a single soul is indeed very much a very serious matter to God, and thus it must be for us. This is true for all us, especially for a priest, something that Saint Anthony Mary Claret observed after difficult sea voyage from Navarre to Rome caused him to eat salt-water soaked bread while he gave away gold coins that had been given to him by a benefactor onboard the ship with him to the Benedictines, who then used the coins to buy foodstuffs at the ship's store:

"Perhaps, had they [his fellow shipmates] seen me sitting at table partaking of rich meals, they might have criticized and depreciated me, as I have seen done to others. Virtue, then, is vitally needful to the priest, whom even evil men expect to be good. (Franchon Royer, The Life of St. Anthony Mary Claret, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, p. 48.)


In this world of such evil in which we have played our own roles on so many occasions,  may we continue to live as penitentially as possible as we seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, including the sins of the conciliarists against the Faith and of anyone in the underground church in this time of apostasy and betrayal who dares to grow righteously indignant when actions that are indeed quite serious to God coming to public light. We cannot minimize sin and get to Heaven. While we must be charitable  to our fellow erring sinners, the most charitable thing that can be done for one who gives signs of predatory behavior is to remonstrate with him that he must cease his actions at once lest we become his accomplices in his future sins.

May the Rosaries we pray each day help to bring about the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and of Christendom in the world.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!


Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Joseph Cupertino, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.