Pope Francis accepts resignation of Bishop Robert W. Finn [CNA]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CNA_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CNA_News

Guest
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/i...rt_W_Finn_of_Kansas_City_St_Joseph.jpgVatican City, Apr 21, 2015 / 04:47 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Nearly two and a half years after being the first U.S. bishop convicted of a misdemeanor in failing to report suspected child abuse by a priest in his diocese, Kansas City-St. Joseph’s bishop has resigned.

The Vatican confirmed Pope Francis’ acceptance of Bishop Finn’s resignation according to Canon 104 Article 2 in the Code of Canon Law in an April 21 statement, released at noon local time.

Article 2 of Canon 104, according to the Vatican’s website, refers to a situation when “a diocesan bishop who has become less able to fulfill his office because of ill health or some other grave cause is earnestly requested to present his resignation from office.”

Finn’s resignation will take effect immediately, and although he will still be a bishop, he will no longer lead a diocese. It is up to Pope Francis to choose his successor.

The brief Vatican statement gave no word as to what Bishop Finn will do following his resignation.

Last September, two years after Bishop Finn’s trial and guilty verdict, an archbishop held a visitation on behalf of the Vatican and met with Bishop Finn.

The reasons for the visitation were not revealed, however some reports indicate that the visitation was intended to evaluate the bishop’s leadership of his diocese.

In September 2012, Bishop Finn, now 62, was convicted on a misdemeanor count of failure to report suspected child abuse after he and his diocese failed to report that lewd images of children had been found on a laptop belonging to Fr. Shawn Ratigan, a priest of the diocese, in December 2010.

The diocese’s vicar general had told Bishop Finn about one of the images, but the bishop did not see them himself.

Fr. Ratigan attempted suicide after the images were discovered and initially had not been expected to live. Diocesan officials told law enforcement officials about the images in May 2011, months after their discovery.

A diocese-commissioned independent investigation said diocesan officials conducted “a limited and improperly conceived investigation” into whether a single image, which the vicar general did not see, constituted child pornography. The diocese’s legal counsel also said that that single image did not constitute child pornography.

Further investigation revealed that the photos had been taken in and around churches where the priest had worked. In 2012, Fr. Ratigan was sentenced to 50 years in federal prison on child pornography charges.

Bishop Finn was sentenced to two years’ probation for failing to report suspected abuse.

feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/catholicnewsagency/dailynews?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/1r7_xpPP0ds

Full article…
 
Pope Francis has accepted the resignation of Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-Saint Joseph, Missouri, according to the Holy See Press Office.In 2012, the prelate was found guilty of …

More…
 
So what happens to the ex-bishop now?

What happened to the priest who had the images on his computer?
 
7_Sorrows said:
So what happens to the ex-bishop now?

What happened to the priest who had the images on his computer?
Click to expand...
I have a question… Why doesn’t the Vatican summarily defrock these priests? Besides financial compensation, this is one of the final steps toward justice. Why do they still get to hold the title of priest? The Vatican should dissociate itself with these priests (although it can take their confessions).
 
Escriva000 said:
I have a question… Why doesn’t the Vatican summarily defrock these priests? Besides financial compensation, this is one of the final steps toward justice. Why do they still get to hold the title of priest? The Vatican should dissociate itself with these priests (although it can take their confessions).
Click to expand...
Because ordination is a sacrament, and a sacrament cannot be undone. However faculties to exercise public ministry can be revoked.
 
Given that Ratigan is in prison, his public ministry is revoked. Not sure if he has been officially defrocked. Maybe they have him doing prison ministry.

This case is different than many of those that have been headline news. There wasn’t physical abuse of minors. A psychologist who evaluated Ratigan said that he was not a pedophile. The pornography wasn’t even discovered until after Bishop Finn removed Ratigan from public ministry, putting him in seclusion, treatment, and under evaluation.

IMO, this is a case where the Bishop “fell on his sword” for the Church; he was NOT guilty of just “shuffling around” or covering up an abuser. And while Ratigan’s offense was grave, it wasn’t physical abuse of minors, either, and it was acted upon in the early stages when there was very little actual evidence against him yet.

So while not handled as well as it should have been, it was still handled much better than the major scandal cases. It would have been handled better had those closer to Ratigan who knew or had suspicions of things sooner reported–such as the principal of the school he was attached to, who was given immunity by the prosecutor for failing a much clearer mandatory reporting requirement. Given immunity because SNAP and the media wanted the head of a bishop and the most public scandal against the Church possible, rather than seeking justice relevant to the people most directly guilty.

I have mixed feelings about the whole affair, because the media spectacle, and the willingness of Catholics and the public to buy into any case or accusation and conflate it with the gravest offenses they’ve ever heard about regarding the priest abuse scandals, have given Bishop Finn such a bad reputation that he can’t really operate with respect or authority. A new bishop potentially could.

It’s sad. I’m in the diocese, and most people seem to think he is Cardinal Law or something. Even the locals have no idea what really happened – they just vent their disgust and horror at the worst of the abuse scandals on Bishop Finn, as if HE were guilty of just covering up and shuffling around serial molesters from one location to another where they could continue to abuse minors.

But that’s not the case at all. Oh, how the devil loves a scandal, and loves ignorance, vengefulness, hatred, and the destruction of innocence. Such useful tools for him.
 
I live next door to the KCMO diocese, on the Kansas side. I think it’s good that Finn resigned. Despite his orthodoxy, his failure to act in the Fr. Ratigan fiasco has caused a great scandal. His reputation is in shambles, and on a personal level I have trouble trusting that diocese. Pray for him.
 
Arandur said:
Given that Ratigan is in prison, his public ministry is revoked. Not sure if he has been officially defrocked. Maybe they have him doing prison ministry.

This case is different than many of those that have been headline news. There wasn’t physical abuse of minors. A psychologist who evaluated Ratigan said that he was not a pedophile. The pornography wasn’t even discovered until after Bishop Finn removed Ratigan from public ministry, putting him in seclusion, treatment, and under evaluation.

IMO, this is a case where the Bishop “fell on his sword” for the Church; he was NOT guilty of just “shuffling around” or covering up an abuser. And while Ratigan’s offense was grave, it wasn’t physical abuse of minors, either, and it was acted upon in the early stages when there was very little actual evidence against him yet.

So while not handled as well as it should have been, it was still handled much better than the major scandal cases. It would have been handled better had those closer to Ratigan who knew or had suspicions of things sooner reported–such as the principal of the school he was attached to, who was given immunity by the prosecutor for failing a much clearer mandatory reporting requirement. Given immunity because SNAP and the media wanted the head of a bishop and the most public scandal against the Church possible, rather than seeking justice relevant to the people most directly guilty.

I have mixed feelings about the whole affair, because the media spectacle, and the willingness of Catholics and the public to buy into any case or accusation and conflate it with the gravest offenses they’ve ever heard about regarding the priest abuse scandals, have given Bishop Finn such a bad reputation that he can’t really operate with respect or authority. A new bishop potentially could.

It’s sad. I’m in the diocese, and most people seem to think he is Cardinal Law or something. Even the locals have no idea what really happened – they just vent their disgust and horror at the worst of the abuse scandals on Bishop Finn, as if HE were guilty of just covering up and shuffling around serial molesters from one location to another where they could continue to abuse minors.

But that’s not the case at all. Oh, how the devil loves a scandal, and loves ignorance, vengefulness, hatred, and the destruction of innocence. Such useful tools for him.
Click to expand...
There is truth to this. SNAP is a pack of treasure-hunting charlatans, and the presence of the National Catholic Distorter is also a liability. But the fact that Ratigan had lewd pictures of children on his computer, and Finn knew about it and shunted him off to therapy instead of calling the cops is still enough of a scandal.

Whether Ratigan was technically a pedophile is splitting hairs. The point is that he was committing heinous crimes against God, His children, and the law of the land, and Finn didn’t do what he should have done. We can’t always be shifting the blame to SNAP, the media, or the liberals who lick their chops at such disasters. We as Catholic laypeople need to hold our clergy accountable.
 
JackVk said:
I live next door to the KCMO diocese, on the Kansas side. I think it’s good that Finn resigned. Despite his orthodoxy, his failure to act in the Fr. Ratigan fiasco has caused a great scandal. His reputation is in shambles, and on a personal level I have trouble trusting that diocese. Pray for him.
Click to expand...
It does seem he fell on the sword somewhat. I feel sorry for him and the priest. The situation definitely needed to be dealt with, but it seems the case was different than most other cases. I don’t know what the actual image was-if it was a photo then their was a victim. The person in the photo. Was it a drawing? They said the Bishop did not see the images and only one was seen as pornographic. Maybe the Bishop was just hoping the matter would just go away. He should have sought advice from someone on what to do. Prayers need to be said for both the ex-bishop and the priest.
 
JackVk said:
There is truth to this. SNAP is a pack of treasure-hunting charlatans, and the presence of the National Catholic Distorter is also a liability. But the fact that Ratigan had lewd pictures of children on his computer, and Finn knew about it and shunted him off to therapy instead of calling the cops is still enough of a scandal.

Whether Ratigan was technically a pedophile is splitting hairs. The point is that he was committing heinous crimes against God, His children, and the law of the land, and Finn didn’t do what he should have done. We can’t always be shifting the blame to SNAP, the media, or the liberals who lick their chops at such disasters. We as Catholic laypeople need to hold our clergy accountable.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that Finn did report it to the police when he first knew about it. I believe it was discovered by some clerk-type person. Whatever the police were able to see on it did not convince them it was a criminal offense, at least at first. This was reported to Finn, who sent Ratican off to the therapy we all know now doesn’t work. Some very anti-Church prosecutors took it up and made a crusade of it. The local media devoted an immense amount of time to it, and Finn pleaded to a lesser charge.

But the truth is, I never believed Finn would last long when he was appointed. I knew some folks in KC who hated him before he even arrived, and it went downhill from there. He was a pretty staunch traditionalist in a diocese, the lay movers and shakers of which had become ultra-liberal. I remember the explosion, for example, when he removed the editor of the diocesan paper and the greater one when he removed lay vocations directors and appointed priests instead. He shut down a training program for various lay ministeries in the Church in order to spend the money on vocations. On and on.

I wish him well. I have no stones at all to throw at him.
 
7_Sorrows said:
It does seem he fell on the sword somewhat. I feel sorry for him and the priest. The situation definitely needed to be dealt with, but it seems the case was different than most other cases. I don’t know what the actual image was-if it was a photo then their was a victim. The person in the photo. Was it a drawing? They said the Bishop did not see the images and only one was seen as pornographic. Maybe the Bishop was just hoping the matter would just go away. He should have sought advice from someone on what to do. Prayers need to be said for both the ex-bishop and the priest.
Click to expand...
Again, it upsets me that we’re debating whether Ratigan was a pedophile or if what he had was child pornography. The lewd images he had were of children from his current and former parishes, and he was using them to satisfy his kinky desires.

I don’t like this hair-splitting attitude, or the fact that we are so quick to accuse the accusers of ulterior motives (like journalist Jason Berry’s telling of the Fr. Maciel horrors). We need to have some humility and dispel the idea that being Catholic means never having to say you’re sorry.
 
JackVk said:
There is truth to this. SNAP is a pack of treasure-hunting charlatans, and the presence of the National Catholic Distorter is also a liability. But the fact that Ratigan had lewd pictures of children on his computer, and Finn knew about it and shunted him off to therapy instead of calling the cops is still enough of a scandal.

Whether Ratigan was technically a pedophile is splitting hairs. The point is that he was committing heinous crimes against God, His children, and the law of the land, and Finn didn’t do what he should have done. We can’t always be shifting the blame to SNAP, the media, or the liberals who lick their chops at such disasters. We as Catholic laypeople need to hold our clergy accountable.
Click to expand...
No one is defending Ratigan.

I agree it was a terrible offense, and that it should have been handled better by the whole diocese. I just think that Bishop Finn was trying to do his best, and given what I understand of the sequence of events and the evidence, I don’t think it’s terribly unreasonable. I also don’t think Finn’s part in it was actually a violation of law.

What seems strange is that Bishop Finn is accused of so much even though, as soon as he was told of any photos, he removed Ratigan, had him undergo psychiatric treatment, had legal and police authorities consulted and shown the evidence (as I understand it, he DID “call the cops”), and directed the appropriate diocesan offices to investigate further. That sounds like it all happened correctly. Then they found further evidence, after Ratigan had already been removed, that was deemed child pornography.

I think Bishop Finn was poorly advised and there was a failure at the local parish and school to report their greater and earlier knowledge of Ratigan’s offenses; diocesan office didn’t escalate or take the highest precautions fast enough; the legal counsel and psychiatrist should have had a higher standard for reporting; and the police officer who reviewed the first evidence should not have dismissed it.

But Bishop Finn took the fall for it all. I think the whole thing was intentionally blown out of proportion in order to damage him personally and the Church as a whole as much as possible.

Yes, we tend to operate on the principle that the highest authority in the chain of command is responsible for his lessers…but is that really a just cultural standard?

We’re all human, and we can only really be held accountable for what we personally are responsible for, based on our limited knowledge at any given time and our deference to other “experts” tasked with such decisions.

We don’t even really apply that “standard” very often (and rightly so). Otherwise executives, politicians, presidents, etc. would be held responsible for the actions of their staff many levels deep, even if they had very little if any involvement. But here, to tarnish the Church, we apply that principle to Bishop Finn.

All just so messy, sad, and painful.
 
JackVk said:
Again, it upsets me that we’re debating whether Ratigan was a pedophile or if what he had was child pornography. The lewd images he had were of children from his current and former parishes, and he was using them to satisfy his kinky desires.

I don’t like this hair-splitting attitude, or the fact that we are so quick to accuse the accusers of ulterior motives (like journalist Jason Berry’s telling of the Fr. Maciel horrors). We need to have some humility and dispel the idea that being Catholic means never having to say you’re sorry.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is defending Ratigan.

Of course we need to be ready to admit faults and apologize and do our best to rectify a situation.

But we also need to be in service to the truth, with justice and mercy. And that involves examining the evidence–not immediately condemning anyone accused–and being even handed and willing to be merciful and charitable to the victims as well as the offenders (rather than just being vengeful towards them). I think justice was served for Ratigan. He is in prison for a long long time, and the victims who had their innocence violated received damages as reparation and to provide for any therapy necessary, as well as other aid.

As for Bishop Finn, that’s a different story. Remember, Bishop Finn is not Ratigan.
 
40.png
Arandur:
I don’t think anyone is defending Ratigan.

Of course we need to be ready to admit faults and apologize and do our best to rectify a situation.

But we also need to be in service to the truth, with justice and mercy. And that involves examining the evidence–not immediately condemning anyone accused–and being even handed and willing to be merciful and charitable to the victims as well as the offenders (rather than just being vengeful towards them). I think justice was served for Ratigan. He is in prison for a long long time, and the victims who had their innocence violated received damages as reparation and to provide for any therapy necessary, as well as other aid.

As for Bishop Finn, that’s a different story. Remember, Bishop Finn is not Ratigan.
Click to expand...
Whatever. At a time when the Church is still mired in this scandal, it’s best to take the safe choice and remove them all. Why even put yourself in a position where you might come close to defending child sex criminals?

I’m reminded of the Black Sox scandal in baseball and how relative innocents had to be removed from baseball, for baseball to start anew.

I used to live in the area. The Archdiocese of Kansas is perhaps the last best archdiocese in the nation, where Wichita Catholic schools can provide free tuition to committed parish members, and Catholic parishes actually run properly. Archbishop Nauman had the guts to excommunicate Kathleen Sebelius. But too bad across the border, KC is mired in this scandal.
 
Ridgerunner said:
My understanding is that Finn did report it to the police when he first knew about it. I believe it was discovered by some clerk-type person. Whatever the police were able to see on it did not convince them it was a criminal offense, at least at first. This was reported to Finn, who sent Ratican off to the therapy we all know now doesn’t work. Some very anti-Church prosecutors took it up and made a crusade of it. The local media devoted an immense amount of time to it, and Finn pleaded to a lesser charge.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that when he first found out about it he asked a parishioner who just so happened to be a police officer if it constituted child pornography, then he shuttled Ratigan off to therapy, then to a monastery, and then, five months later officially informed the proper authorities. In the mean time Ratigan took even more photos of children in his parish.

Also, this wasn’t Bishop Finn’s first run in with the abuse scandal. Back in 2008 after his own diocese had to shell out $10MM he pledged to report suspected abuse immediately. Given these facts it’s quite difficult for me to have even a shred of sympathy for the bishop.

Edit: Source
 
Like it or not: Bishop Finn was convicted of a crime (albeit a misdemeanor) in his handling of this issue.

Perhaps he was a victim of all the gross mis-handling of cases by Bishops that went before him. If so, those Bishops have a terrible burden.

Perhaps he was a victim of politics and venial prosecutors looking to make a name given all the gross mis-handling of cases by Bishops that went before him. If so, those Bishops have a terrible burden for creating the situation where this could happen.

Perhaps, he was a victim of a society that demands action - any action - given all the gross mis-handling of cases by Bishops that went before him. If so, those Bishops have a terrible burden for creating the situation where this could happen.

Perhaps he mis-handled the Ratigan matter and was justly convicted.

In all it really doesn’t matter, because he was convicted and this had to happen as a consequence or the Church would lose even more credibility. That it took this long …well, it was a matter of time…
 
Brandon_Cal said:
My understanding is that when he first found out about it he asked a parishioner who just so happened to be a police officer if it constituted child pornography, then he shuttled Ratigan off to therapy, then to a monastery, and then, five months later officially informed the proper authorities. In the mean time Ratigan took even more photos of children in his parish.

Also, this wasn’t Bishop Finn’s first run in with the abuse scandal. Back in 2008 after his own diocese had to shell out $10MM he pledged to report suspected abuse immediately. Given these facts it’s quite difficult for me to have even a shred of sympathy for the bishop.

Edit: Source
Click to expand...
From your article:

"… the choice of the shy, privately gentle cleric with ties to Opus Dei and a general reputation for conservatism served to roil the long-progressive Northwest diocese, with many seeing the pick as a Roman rebuke of the independent, locally-run National Catholic Reporter, the de facto publication of record for the US church’s liberal flank.

Shortly after succeeding Boland as diocesan bishop, Finn accordingly set out to reboot the diocesan culture, dismantling the widely-imitated local adult formation program founded after Vatican II and removing the widely-circulated column of Fr Richard McBrien from Kansas City’s Catholic Key, both moves that garnered praise from traditionalists and fury among progressives. Along the way, the bishop scored a notable spike in the number of men in priestly formation, with the diocese set to ordain no less than nine new priests this year."

That’s really why all of this happened. Liberals in KC have been gunning for him from the beginning, and they’re very powerful people.

But Bp Finn relied on a cop’s evaluation of the criminality of what the cop (not Bp Finn) saw and did what many and many a bishop has done; sought a “cure” that we now know doesn’t exist, then reported it further. He did have the advice of the diocesan counsel in all of it. But he also had a rabidly liberal prosecutor and newspaper to contend with as well as the liberal Catholics whose domination of the diocese he had reversed.

All the same, some expect him to have gone perhaps to that prosecutor (not just a cop) at the very first report by a clerical employee, knowing as he was surely advised that the prosecutor is very hostile to the Church and is in league with SNAP. But he didn’t. So, no charity toward him! Bishops are supposed to be adjunct prosecutors. We all know that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top