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

[JimG]

I lived on the Kansas side for a time, but was never too familiar with the Missouri diocese. It was the birthplace of the National Catholic Reporter.

 

[JimG]

Here’s a KC Star article about Archbishop Nauman, who will for now take charge of the Missouri diocese as well as the Kansas archdiocese. From the tone of the quotes from Rebecca Randles, the anti-Catholic lawyer, it sounds as though she may already have Archbishop Nauman in her sights.

 

[JimG]

And here is a National Catholic Register interview with Archbishop Nauman.

 

[robertmidwest]

I lived on the Kansas side for a time, but was never too familiar with the Missouri diocese. It was the birthplace of the National Catholic Reporter.

The Reporter is an independent paper?

So where is all the radicalism in the diocese Bill Donahue is talking about?

 

[JimG]

And for a little background, a somewhat mixed review of Bishop Finn from Dr. Jeff Mirus (written before his resignation.)

 

[robertmidwest]

Kansas City-St. Joseph was the national leader in the formation of lay people as pastoral administrators to staff priestless parishes.

Is this the radicalism in the diocese?

 

[JackVk]

Here’s a KC Star article about Archbishop Nauman, who will for now take charge of the Missouri diocese as well as the Kansas archdiocese. From the tone of the quotes from Rebecca Randles, the anti-Catholic lawyer, it sounds as though she may already have Archbishop Nauman in her sights.

Nah. If there were any credible dirt on Nauman the media would have crucified him a long time ago.

 

[Arandur]

The Reporter is an independent paper?

So where is all the radicalism in the diocese Bill Donahue is talking about?

The Reporter was forced to be independent. They’ve been operating for decades out of KC, undermining the Church from within. Their publications are quite liberal and dissident. They disguise their products as official Catholic sources. They produce a lot of “resources” for laity and clergy alike – including homily prep stuff. So yeah, they’re pretty indicative of the dissident Left opposing the Church.

The Catholic Key is still pretty politically liberal (it’s the official Diocesan paper).

The parishes I’ve been involved in are pretty liberal, as well. I recently heard from a prior pastor of my parish, who recently retired but had been serving in the diocese for a couple of decades. His view were pretty liberal, a fair amount of dissent.

I don’t really want to name names or call people out. Just suffice to say that I have only been in KC for 5 years and I would say that a majority of priests, staff, and active laity are pretty liberal and dissent on a number of Church teachings as much as they think they can get away with – and some more.

There are, for instance, many obstacles in even advancing Pro-Life causes here. Of all things. This follows of course with all the common liberal hot-button agenda items with either challenges against or at least significant hesitancy to support the Church’s views on marriage, government involvement vs. the principle of subsidiarity and private charity, women’s ordination, priestly celibacy, contraception, cohabitation, the nature of the Eucharist, the authority of the Church, etc.

All this I’ve been discovering more and more since I’ve been here and been more active. Positions and faithfulness that I never thought I had to much question or walk softly around other Catholics about rock the boat here. Certainly greatly more heterodox than Denver or St. Louis, the two other archdioceses I’m most familiar with.

 

[Arandur]

Again, which year it is? How come that you even have “treatment” programs after the John Jay report?

I thought the “treatment” given was in reference to Ratigan’s suicide attempt, and to treat his suicidal tendencies and clinical depression…? And then to evaluate his mental state with regard to the photos they had at the time–which a psychiatrist, after the review, said he was not a pedophile…?

Apparently Bp Finn has decided that he is a psychiatrist, because he deemed himself
to be competent in deciding what is, and what is not child porn, instead of referring the case to proper authorities right away.

I expect Bp Finn to – wait for it – obey the law. No, I realize that it may be a shocking concept to some, but a Catholic bishop is not above the law. If the law says that you must report suspected pedophiles, then you report suspected pedophiles. As simple as that.

Except that he did report it…and had the various diocesan offices tasked with this kind of thing work through it. They weren’t thorough enough or fast enough and were given bad advice and bad legal counsel.

I don’t know why everyone attributes ill intent and somehow buys the SNAP line that the whole hierarchy of the Church and all their staff are out to abuse children and actively encourage the abuse of children and intentionally go to great lengths to cover it up. That’s some serious and extensive malice that is being attributed to people of all levels, laity as well as clergy. It’s simply not credible.

 

[robertmidwest]

The Reporter was forced to be independent. They’ve been operating for decades out of KC, undermining the Church from within. Their publications are quite liberal and dissident. They disguise their products as official Catholic sources. They produce a lot of “resources” for laity and clergy alike – including homily prep stuff. So yeah, they’re pretty indicative of the dissident Left opposing the Church.

The Catholic Key is still pretty politically liberal (it’s the official Diocesan paper).

The parishes I’ve been involved in are pretty liberal, as well. I recently heard from a prior pastor of my parish, who recently retired but had been serving in the diocese for a couple of decades. His view were pretty liberal, a fair amount of dissent.

I don’t really want to name names or call people out. Just suffice to say that I have only been in KC for 5 years and I would say that a majority of priests, staff, and active laity are pretty liberal and dissent on a number of Church teachings as much as they think they can get away with – and some more.

There are, for instance, many obstacles in even advancing Pro-Life causes here. Of all things. This follows of course with all the common liberal hot-button agenda items with either challenges against or at least significant hesitancy to support the Church’s views on marriage, government involvement vs. the principle of subsidiarity and private charity, women’s ordination, priestly celibacy, contraception, cohabitation, the nature of the Eucharist, the authority of the Church, etc.

All this I’ve been discovering more and more since I’ve been here and been more active. Positions and faithfulness that I never thought I had to much question or walk softly around other Catholics about rock the boat here. Certainly greatly more heterodox than Denver or St. Louis, the two other archdioceses I’m most familiar with.

You are still making a bunch of generalized statements. What was the heresy was being supported by the diocese before Finn came and corrected it?

What do mean that the Reporter was forced to be independent? Was is funded by the diocese and cut off funding? I am not up to speed on what you mean.

 

[pnewton]

Of course there are “two Bishop Finns”. One was the bishop who is a bishop, and he was good at that. The other is the investigator/prosecutor Finn. The second was a poor investigator and prosecutor who, because of that, gradually became a professional defendant.

Yes, he was a poor policeman. That is why one is supposed to go the police and not the Church to report sexual abuse, a common sense idea that is lost in the rush of anti-catholicism that has dominated this issue the last two decades.

 

[Arandur]

You are still making a bunch of generalized statements. What was the heresy was being supported by the diocese before Finn came and corrected it?

If the Reporter was any indication, pretty much across the board standard liberal dissent, like I mentioned. Dissent on abortion; promoting SSM; condoning contraception, cohabitation and divorce; dissenting vehemently on women’s ordination and priestly celibacy; rejecting traditional practices and devotions all around (art, architecture, devotions, Latin, chant, etc); promoting active socialism, secularism, liberation theology, etc; diminishment of the Sacraments and catechesis; etc. I DO think that the Reporter is more radical in all these areas than most. But it is symptomatic and trying to influence many to its viewpoints.

What do mean that the Reporter was forced to be independent? Was is funded by the diocese and cut off funding? I am not up to speed on what you mean.

Ever since Bishop Helmsing officially condemned them and called upon them to remove the name “Catholic” from their publications (which they have not done). Bishop Finn reiterated Helmsing’s rebuke.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16911
prolifecorner.com/national-catholic-reporter-declared-heretical/

The second link contains Helmsing’s original condemnation, which uses language that could barely be any stronger, just a tiny step short of official excommunication (he says they are likely under auto-excommunication for rampant and vehement promotion of heresy on a wide range of issues). Finn’s estimation is that hardly anything has changed at the Reporter since Helmsing’s condemnation. From what I’ve seen, I would concur, though I couldn’t stomach reading more than a sampling of their various publications to tell you more myself. I’ve since trashed the last things of theirs that I picked up, about a year ago.

Once again, I don’t think that much of the diocese is THAT radical (I hope not!). But their publications are fairly widespread here–someone is buying and distributing and consuming them.

I’ll leave it at that. I really don’t want to get into personal experiences with individuals or the parishes I’ve been involved in. There are people on this forum that belong to area parishes.

 

[robertmidwest]

If the Reporter was any indication, pretty much across the board standard liberal dissent, like I mentioned. Dissent on abortion; promoting SSM; condoning contraception, cohabitation and divorce; dissenting vehemently on women’s ordination and priestly celibacy; rejecting traditional practices and devotions all around (art, architecture, devotions, Latin, chant, etc); promoting active socialism, secularism, liberation theology, etc; diminishment of the Sacraments and catechesis; etc. I DO think that the Reporter is more radical in all these areas than most. But it is symptomatic and trying to influence many to its viewpoints.

Ever since Bishop Helmsing officially condemned them and called upon them to remove the name “Catholic” from their publications (which they have not done). Bishop Finn reiterated Helmsing’s rebuke.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16911
prolifecorner.com/national-catholic-reporter-declared-heretical/

The second link contains Helmsing’s original condemnation, which uses language that could barely be any stronger, just a tiny step short of official excommunication (he says they are likely under auto-excommunication for rampant and vehement promotion of heresy on a wide range of issues). Finn’s estimation is that hardly anything has changed at the Reporter since Helmsing’s condemnation. From what I’ve seen, I would concur, though I couldn’t stomach reading more than a sampling of their various publications to tell you more myself. I’ve since trashed the last things of theirs that I picked up, about a year ago.

Once again, I don’t think that much of the diocese is THAT radical (I hope not!). But their publications are fairly widespread here–someone is buying and distributing and consuming them.

I’ll leave it at that. I really don’t want to get into personal experiences with individuals or the parishes I’ve been involved in. There are people on this forum that belong to area parishes.

They are and independent paper correct? The bishop is supposed to shut down independent papers? You have lost me.

 

[JimG]

Actually, the National Catholic Reporter has been an independent newspaper from its beginning, having no official connection to any diocese or Church organization. It does call itself a Catholic newspaper, though. As the paper seemed to become increasingly more heterodox, the diocesan bishops of KC requested that it drop the “Catholic” from its name, but it has refused to do so.

That, however, is a minor issue. Apparently the diocese itself in many ways seemed to follow the trajectory of the NCR. I suppose that was what Bishop Finn was supposed to fix, but he did have a lot of enemies among the old guard of the diocese.

 

[weller2]

Except that he did report it…

He did not. His subordinate did, behind his back. From the PDF posted upthread, page 106:

The next morning, on May 12, 2011, having not heard back from Msgr. Murphy, Capt. Smith notified the Crimes Against Children Division of the situation. That same day, Msgr. Murphy contacted Jon Haden, who sent the flash drive to Msgr. Murphy to provide to the police. That afternoon, Msgr. Murphy called Capt. Smith and told him that although a disc had been made to preserve the material on the computer, the laptop itself had been given to Bishop Finn, who gave the computer to Fr. Ratigan’s brother. Fr. Ratigan’s brother had destroyed it. After this call, police responded to the Chancery to pick up the flash drive, and Msgr. Murphy notified the Bishop that same day that he had contacted the police regarding Fr. Ratigan. When asked why he decided to contact police at this point and whom he consulted, Msgr. Murphy told the Firm that he made this decision on his own and did not discuss it with anyone beforehand. Bishop Finn was in Washington, D.C., on May 12th for a conference.

Someone explain to me why Bp Finn was not charged with trafficking child porn and destruction of evidence.

But wait, it gets worse. The stuff was found 5 months earlier (Dec 17) which was also when Ratigan tried to commit suicide. Let’s see what happened in the mean time (page 99 onwards):

Because no one had been able to determine whether the photos were downloaded from the Internet or taken by Fr. Ratigan, there was a distinct possibility that the children in some of the photographs had been abused by Fr. Ratigan in the process of taking the pictures or at other times. Mr. Haden further questioned whether DFS had been notified and advised that DFS should certainly be notified if any of the children were from the Diocese. According to Msgr. Murphy and Bishop Finn, no steps were taken to identify any of the children in the
photographs. In addition, DFS was never notified.

Now, that’s a real gem right there. So the procedure only refers to molesting kids from your own diocese, and the ones from a neighboring diocese are fair game? And since it has been impossible that any diocesian kids have been molested, no notification was made. Briliant logic!

Furher, the IRB was not notified. According to both Msgr. Murphy and Bishop Finn, the IRB was not notified because no identifiable victim was making a complaint. Obviously, however, subjects such as the two to three year‐old child in the nude photo were in no position to make a complaint. The nature of the photographs, combined with the fact that no one had ruled out the possibility that Fr. Ratigan, an avid and frequent photographer,
had taken at least some of them, gave rise to at least a suspicion of child abuse that should have been investigated.

That would be downright comical if the matter wasn’t so serious: We have a dead body. Since a dead body is no position to make a complaint against its killer, we have no case to pursue.

Then there’s this:

Moreover, the Diocese made no effort to notify the parents and families at St. Patrick’s Parish or other parishes were Fr. Ratigan had been assigned. Bishop Finn advised that he felt that notifying the parents at St. Patrick’s of the photos found on the laptop “would be like yelling fire in a crowded theater.” However, as discussed below, the lack of notification could have enabled Fr. Ratigan to continue to have contact with unwitting
parish families and children.

Another show of Bp Finn’s brilliant logic. Since there was a plague of pedophile priests, then notifying the public of another clerical pedophile could cause panic. Therefore, it’s better to keep the matter silent. Right.

Anyway, Ratigan recovers and gets assigned to a mission house. Bp Finn prohibits him from having contact with children. And what is it that Ratigan does? You guessed it! So what does our bishop do?

Bishop Finn spoke to Fr. Ratigan the same day. When Fr. Ratigan acknowledged he had been present at the parade and birthday party, Bishop Finn reminded and admonished him that he was to have no contact with children.

He admonished Ratigan. Oh boy. Now that was some real action wasn’t it. How effective was it? Let’s see:

On April 11, 2011, just three days after Bishop Finn admonished him again to have no contact with children, Fr. Ratigan heard individual confessions of minors at the Franciscan Prayer Center on retreat. Additionally, while living at the Vincentian House, Fr. Ratigan hosted an Easter party/family reunion on the property. Several young children were present. Fr. Ratigan is charged in the federal indictment with attempting to produce pornography by taking additional pictures of a young girl aimed up her shorts on Easter Sunday.

Well then. So how was Bp Finn planning to do about this aspiring child porn producer?

During his interview, Bishop Finn told the Firm that by this time, he had not formulated a plan to further address Fr. Ratigan’s behavior if
he continued to violate the restrictions. Although he was considering assigning Fr. Ratigan to the Archives Department of the Chancery, where he would not have contact with children, Bishop Finn had not determined a “breaking point” at which he would remove Fr. Ratigan from ministry or take other more serious remedial action.

He had not determined a breaking point yet. Oh well. I wonder what he considered a breaking point then.

 

[JimG]

Another blog commentary here, dated April 23, 2015.

And a St. Louis blogger comments here.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Then why Bp Finn took the deal if the state had no case? Here’s a shocking concept: what if the DA had evidence, but decided to play it this way to avoid social unrest? That’s the pattern you see everywhere in these cases: bishops are being let off the hook with settlements in situations which would earn Joe Sixpack a conspiracy charge.

Think about it, then think what will happen once the state stops accommodating the Church.

Again, which year it is? How come that you even have “treatment” programs after the John Jay report?

Apparently Bp Finn has decided that he is a psychiatrist, because he deemed himself
to be competent in deciding what is, and what is not child porn, instead of referring the case to proper authorities right away.

I expect Bp Finn to – wait for it – obey the law. No, I realize that it may be a shocking concept to some, but a Catholic bishop is not above the law. If the law says that you must report suspected pedophiles, then you report suspected pedophiles. As simple as that.
Again, was there a SWAT raid? Conspiracy charge? No? Then the bishop was treated better than an average citizen. You have no factual case to claim persecution.

Are you suggesting that it was the Left who planted Ratigan to take down the bishop?

What is that, Chewbacca defense? None of this has any relevance to the case.

I think we can stipulate that you hate Bp. Finn and aren’t too fond of anybody who has anything kind to say about him including the sister whose comments I posted and which you characterize as a “Chewbacca defense” whatever that may be. I do think I understand the scorn implicit in it, though.

In reading the various accounts, and not focusing on the scathing conclusions and judgments expressed above, it is obvious that the delay in prosecuting Ratigan was multifactorial; among the causes being his hospitalization after his suicide attempt, his being sent to a shrink, but also being due to confusion among the various players who, it seemed, knew a lot more about it than Finn did and just plain handled it incompetently. Among the latter were the diocesan attorney who initially gave them very bad advice based, apparently, on unfamiliarity with the statutes concerning child sexual abuse, despite being a member of the prestigious firm of Lathrop & Gage. There is no question the police were informed immediately. None at all. They were, the very next day after some (but seemingly not all) of the photos were discovered. Possibly Msgr Murphy didn’t want to think the worst and heard what he wanted to hear from the initial police contact, but possibly he really didn’t “get it”. In any event, he was obviously acting in lieu of Bp. Finn in the whole thing but never actually presented a clear picture of the situation to Bp. Finn. Finn was given only conclusions; opinions, including that of the attorney from Lathrop and Gage and the psychiatrist who, amazingly, didn’t think Ratigan was really into child porn but “resorted” to it only because he was “depressed”. The whole deal started on 12/16/10 and the police became heavily involved in the case on 4/9/11, delayed until 5/11 because of Msgr Murphy’s knee surgery. Meanwhile, a jump drive of the photos were at Lathrop and Gage the whole time and only very late in the game was Finn advised by them that the matter should be reported to a special law enforcement unit that deals primarily with child sexual abuse.

Apparently the KC prosecutor didn’t think a “swat team” was in order even against Ratigan, because Ratigan wasn’t charged until October, 2011 despite months of police involvement and gleeful press reports. But, of course, you think one should have been sent out for Bp Finn immediately.

It’s pretty plain that evidence was compromised inadvertently by a terrible chain of custody by several people who had no interest in protecting Ratigan, including Lathrop and Gage. It’s plain that Bp. Finn was naive in thinking Ratigan would obey his order to stay away from children until the matter could be sorted out. He was naive in accepting Msgr Murphy’s bland account, including Murphy’s ill-informed and possibly protective immediate report to the police and the truly strange report of the psychiatrist. Should Finn have gotten it better from Murphy exactly what was reported to the police and perhaps sent one of Lathrop & Gage’s criminal attorneys down to the special child abuse unit with the jump drive instead of relying on second-hand information about Murphy’s contact with the ordinary police? Sure, and I’m sure Bp Finn would now agree with that.

Guess we’ll see what sort of bishop Pope Francis appoints. Possibly he’ll go back to the system prior to Pope Benedict, in which a committee of bishops appoints instead of the Pope himself.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Another blog commentary here, dated April 23, 2015.

And a St. Louis blogger comments here.

Hope you don’t mind my borrowing a piece from the first one:

"Currently the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph has 32 young men in seminary for a population of only 133,000 Catholics; impressive numbers by any standards. In 2015 alone the diocese will ordain 9 men to the priesthood. Compare this to the Archdiocese of New York with its Catholic population of over 2.8 Million. For both 2012 and 2013 combined only 7 diocesan priests were ordained.

It is also important to note that the ordination of these 9 young men is not an anomaly for Kansas City. For the years 2010-2012 the diocese ordained a total of 14 men to the priesthood, placing them in the top 15 out of nearly 200 dioceses in the United States for ordinand to Catholic ratio. According to Georgetown’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), which has been documenting these surveys for over twenty years, the diocese never appeared in the top 20 until Bishop Finn arrived. As I have written about before, authenticity, orthodoxy and tradition friendly bishops attract men to the priesthood. This is a major part of Bishop Finn’s legacy, and it needs to be told."

It’s hard not to be concerned about the Church in the U.S. Pope Benedicat appointed some truly faithful bishops, including the one he appointed to my own diocese (Springfield-Cape Girardeau) after years of liberalism under the former bishop. One prays that Pope Francis will appoint faithful bishops and not return to the days when the body of bishops selected them. Despite some excellent appointments in the last several years, the majority is still likely to appoint some who are like the bishop of KC prior to Bp. Finn.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I know it’s off topic, but I can’t help myself. Here’s our bishop.

news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2014/10/05/catholic-leader-publicly-opposes-gay-rights-ordinance/16775897/

Here’s another piece about our Bishop Johnston:

"After years of dissent Bishop James Vann Johnston is going to try and bring the diocese back to orthodoxy. Let us pray for this courageous bishop.

Three interesting developments are underway in the Diocese of Springfield – Cape Girardeau. Bishop James Vann Johnston has already given preeminent position to the Usus Antiquior (Extraordinary Form Latin Mass) at St. Agnes Cathedral in Springfield where it is celebrated no less than five times a week. Days and times for liturgical celebrations can be viewed on the Latin Mass Community website.

In addition to this, The Catholic Knight has learned that Bishop Johnston has also given his support to the creation of an Anglican Use Community within the City of Springfield. This community lists dates, times and locations for their liturgical services on their website as well. With this latest action we see that Bishop Johnston is opening up avenues for liturgical renewal both on the Latin and English front.

Lastly, The Catholic Knight has just learned that Bishop James Vann Johnston now plans to Consecrate the Diocese of Springfield – Cape Girardeau to the Immaculate Heart of Mary … This comes as the liturgical reform gets underway in earnest."

Any of you KC posters want to move to Springfield? You’re welcome if you do.

 

[Arandur]

Any of you KC posters want to move to Springfield? You’re welcome if you do.

Thanks Ridgerunner Went to college down there 11 years ago now. I have a fondness for Springfield. But my wife’s family is anchored in KC, and mine in St. Louis. Quite a diversity of dioceses we’ve got here in this state, it seems.

I, too, hope we get some continuing orthodoxy. It is really only from orthodoxy that we are seeing revival of the faith. Giving into the world is, well, like giving into the enemy; when you do, you lose the war. Let us not forget that we are the Church Militant; Scripture warns us not to be of the world, and not to succumb to its vices or allow Truth to be ignored via relativism and the various cultural depravities and “philosophies” we find ourselves faced with.