The story seems to be that a priest had gotten caught with scads of kiddie porn on his computer. Story is coherent so far. Where the story becomes vague is how it was inferred or deduced that this priest was also molesting children, and that the diocese and the priest’s bishop had reason to know about it.
So is the state fishing, or has someone made allegations of being abused (or having a child being abused) by that priest and of trying in vain to alert his superiors?
The "sex abuse" referred to in this indictment is not the usual physical sex abuse (touching, forced intercourse, etc). It refers to the acquisition of sexual images. Last December (2010), diocese officials discovered child porn images on his laptop and he is facing three state child pornography charges and 13 federal charges for possessing, producing and attempting to produce child porn.
It was not until May of this year that Bishop Finn notified law enforcement. During this period (December-May), Ratigan attended children’s birthday parties, spent weekends in the homes of parish families, hosted the Easter egg hunt and presided, with the bishop’s permission, at a girl’s First Communion. Some further indecent photos were taken during the Easter egg hunt.
Thus the indictment says that in this May-December window, abuse might have occurred due to the Bishop's delay in reporting the discovery of the pornography.