Good for him.
But the REAL elephant in the room is this part:
the psychologists didn't just whitewash his actions and deny the obvious diagnosis, but the psychologist didn't bother to report the problem to child protective services either (and note that the psychologist saw the photos, so ignorance is not the reason).
As soon as the pictures were discovered, Fr. Ratigan tried to kill himself, leaving a note saying he was sorry for what he had done. He survived his suicide attempt and was sent to a psychologist in Philadelphia who specializes in treating priests with problems. And yet, after interviewing Fr. Ratigan, and even after viewing the pictures which were pulled from Fr. Ratigan's laptop, the psychologist concluded he was not a pedophile. He was just lonely. And depressed. Why? Because the principal of the school was "out to get him," having complained about his inappropriate behavior around children. It was her fault, not his.
Time and again, bishops were told by experts to whitewash these crimes.
When I was in medical school, not only were there trends to minimize the problem of childhood sexual abuse (which was often attributed by Freud to fantasy...and here I don't discount the witchhunts and exaggerations that falsely accused many).
But in the 1970's Newsweek had an article lamenting that fathers/stepfathers who molested their underaged daughters shouldn't go to jail, because not only would it break up the family but because of what would happen to them in jail.
And in the 1970's, we were told that reporting cases often traumatized the victim more than the actual abuse...
So when will the psychologists be called to pay for their sins?
I mean I remember stories that sex with children was normal and good for them, that teenaged boys should not pay attention to when girls said no and push sex on them anyway, that moms should give their fifteen year old daughters condoms before they went out on a date, and that a lot of psychosis was from homosexual panic or sexual repression, so once this was destigmatized, there would be no problems.
And personally I am waiting for the former Bishop of Altoona to pay for his sins. He once bragged in his paper that there had been no pedophilia problems on his watch, but at that time a nurse cried on my shoulder that her husband was asked to intervene with a family in their town not to report the abuse of their young teenaged boy, using the excuse that the priest was such a nice guy. The bishop was right: There was abuse, but there were not "problems' with it because the families were paid off or pressured not to make problems.
Another thing: We were told in our diocese newspaper about how Pennstate was so gay friendly and had gay friendly psychlogists and a gay friendly priest. Later, when the Sandusky affair exploded I wonder if the reports were not made much of because it was just normal sex play by an older man and a young man, no one hurt, just move along here...
----------------------
if I am still a Catholic, it might be because of two things:
One, I knew many good and holy priests when I was a missionary.
Two: I also was aware of at least one minister who abused his 13 year old daughter. That case went to court after the girl's boyfriend told someone...and the guy did a plea bargain because there was enough evidence to send him to jail for years, and he plea bargained it down to six months so the daughter didn't have to testify against him in court.
