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

[weller2]

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.

The Chewbacca defense is the name given to a legal strategy in which the aim of the argument seems to be to deliberately confuse the jury rather than actually refute the case of the other side. The concept’s name comes from episode 27 of the cartoon series South Park, “Chef Aid”, which premiered on October 7, 1998. This episode satirised attorney Johnnie Cochran’s closing argument defending O. J. Simpson in his murder trial. The term has since been commonly used in describing legal cases, especially criminal ones. The concept of disguising a flaw in one’s argument by presenting large amounts of irrelevant information has previously been described as a red herring or the fallacy ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

Which is what you are doing. The topic of the thread is Bp Finn’s handling of Ratigan. Bp Finn’s contributions in other areas, such as fighting the liberal heresy, should have no bearing on how one evaluates his actions with respect to Ratigan.

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.

Except that they weren’t. Msgr Murphy had an unofficial conversation with a police officer over the phone. That’s all. You would have a point, if Msgr Murphy called a police station, filed a formal report of suspicion of crime, and they declined to investigate. But that’s not what happened here.

Generally, all Bp Finn and his subordinates were expected to do, and what, may I add, any reasonable person would do, was to call 911 the moment they were notified of the contents of the laptop. Instead, they have engaged in protracted hair splitting regarding the precise legal definition of child porn, and minute procedural details, such as identity of children in the photos (as if it mattered).

The whole deal started on 12/16/10 and the police became heavily involved in the case on 4/9/11

And meanwhile, Ratigan was walking around taking photos of the kids, and Bp Finn
apparently had no idea what to do about it despite being repeatedly informed, that Ratigan is now an active pedo in hunter mode. There are only two possibilities here: either Bp Finn was did not know that taking upskirt photos of kids is very illegal, or he was trying to cover up. Take your pick.

But, of course, you think one should have been sent out for Bp Finn immediately.

Again, Bp Finn gave the laptop to Ratigan’s brother, who subsequently destroyed it. That is enough to charge Bp Finn with criminal conspiracy, trafficking child porn, and destruction of evidence. So if you want to keep pushing the line that Bp Finn was persecuted by Teh Evil Liberal DA™, then you have two explain why the DA let him off the hook for the three aforementioned felonies. That doesn’t really fit into your line, does it?

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

I am seriously concerned that Bp Johnston might be moved to KC now.

 

[Ridgerunner]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

Which is what you are doing. The topic of the thread is Bp Finn’s handling of Ratigan. Bp Finn’s contributions in other areas, such as fighting the liberal heresy, should have no bearing on how one evaluates his actions with respect to Ratigan.

Except that they weren’t. Msgr Murphy had an unofficial conversation with a police officer over the phone. That’s all. You would have a point, if Msgr Murphy called a police station, filed a formal report of suspicion of crime, and they declined to investigate. But that’s not what happened here.

Generally, all Bp Finn and his subordinates were expected to do, and what, may I add, any reasonable person would do, was to call 911 the moment they were notified of the contents of the laptop. Instead, they have engaged in protracted hair splitting regarding the precise legal definition of child porn, and minute procedural details, such as identity of children in the photos (as if it mattered).

And meanwhile, Ratigan was walking around taking photos of the kids, and Bp Finn
apparently had no idea what to do about it despite being repeatedly informed, that Ratigan is now an active pedo in hunter mode. There are only two possibilities here: either Bp Finn was did not know that taking upskirt photos of kids is very illegal, or he was trying to cover up. Take your pick.

Again, Bp Finn gave the laptop to Ratigan’s brother, who subsequently destroyed it. That is enough to charge Bp Finn with criminal conspiracy, trafficking child porn, and destruction of evidence. So if you want to keep pushing the line that Bp Finn was persecuted by Teh Evil Liberal DA™, then you have two explain why the DA let him off the hook for the three aforementioned felonies. That doesn’t really fit into your line, does it?

As you know, the photos were all re-recorded and given to Lathrop & Gage; later to the police. Bp Finn conspired with no one, destroyed nothing, trafficked in nothing. It serves no purpose here to “convict” him of something he didn’t do just because one hates Finn for whatever other reasons one has to hate him.

As you know, Bp Finn left it to Msgr Murphy to investigate it. In retrospect, he was leaning on a weak reed, but there is nothing in the facts to indicate that Finn encouraged Murphy to be a poor investigator and reporter.

And it was the Lathrop & Gage attorney who advised Murphy and Finn that the photos, as known initially, did not violate any laws. The attorney was wrong. In retrospect, Finn, who never saw the photos himself, probably should have called L&G and asked them to send over a criminal law specialist before relying on the first opinion, and I’m sure he now wishes he did. But if you combine Murphy’s recount of what the initial police contact said and the Lathrop & Gage legal opinion, then stack the psychiatrist’s report on top of it, Finn had an ambiguous and totally derivative information set to work with. Did Finn know there was a special child abuse unit with the KCPD that specializes in interpreting photos and the actions of child molesters or porn addicts? I don’t know, but there’s no particular reason to think he did.

As I think everybody knows by now, pedophiles (and, presumably child porn addicts) develop very devious and deceitful ways over time. They have to. Obviously, Ratigan fooled Finn’s predecessor, Bp Boland, for years, as well as lots of others in the diocese. Some thought they saw signs long before Finn was appointed, but no SWAT team was called, and no police investigation was requested.

Bishops do a lot of things through subordinates, as did Finn. And the bishops and subordinates, one guesses, are now progressively taught to call the cops in at the first suggestion of evidence or complaint. Maybe that’s where we now are and where we need to be in an environment in which all priests are now suspects. Some priests, as we know, have “beat the rap”, rightly or wrongly. Presumably, some of them were charged on unpersuasive evidence or simply when they didn’t do what they were accused of at all.

Bishop Finn, it appears, did a lot of good things as bishop of KC; things for which some hated him passionately. “Chewbacca defense” has nothing to do with that. When someone comes after him as if he was the devil incarnate, demanding SWAT team invasions of the chancery to perp walk a gentle and dedicated man in manacles or whatever, at the point of AR-15s, one reasonably sense that emotion and perhaps personal hatred drives the complaint. The impulse to speak hatefully should not be the only driver in judging a man’s life.

 

[robertmidwest]

I am seriously concerned that Bp Johnston might be moved to KC now.

After the fiasco up here? No. We have lost members, closed schools, and 100,000+ signed petition to get rid of Bishop Finn. Pope Francis isn’t going to assign someone who will continue to divide the diocese. Whoever he assigns will be picked to bring unity.

I assume you are being factitious to stir up trouble.

 

[Ridgerunner]

After the fiasco up here? No. We have lost members, closed schools, and 100,000+ signed petition to get rid of Bishop Finn. Pope Francis isn’t going to assign someone who will continue to divide the diocese. Whoever he assigns will be picked to bring unity.

I assume you are being factitious to stir up trouble.

Not at all. I truly am concerned about it. I almost hope Pope Francis allows the U.S. bishops to, again, select bishops’ appointments, as was the practice before Pope Benedict. That would almost guarantee that our bishop would go nowhere because the majority of bishops are still liberal in the old way.

But Bp Johnston is not Bp Finn. I am convinced Bp. Finn is a faithful and genuinely good man, but one who was ultimately defeated by the New Church establishment because he acted so directly and (sin of sins) is a member of Opus Dei. Bp Johnston, on the other hand, has an ability to pre-empt the best abilities of all kinds of people and channel them in positive directions. He does not let activists just do what they dream up themselves, but he does give them highly useful things to do. It’s hard to turn him down or oppose him.

An example, but certainly not the only one. Bp Johnston hardly veiled his disbelief in the mission of CCHD and his belief in direct charity. So he formed a diocesan-wide charitable organization that actually delivers direct goods and services to the poor and the distressed and encouraged people to donate to that instead of CCHD which seems to simply be a conduit of money to often questionable secular organizations.

So, those who don’t like donations going to outfits like ACORN via CCHD are happy with it. Social justice minded people are happy with it because they get to participate in something that really gets results, and the recipients are happy with it. I’m a socially conservative guy, and I’m happy enough with it to donate to it when I wouldn’t give a nickel to CCHD.

I live in what surely must be the Evangelical capital of the universe. The world headquarters of the Assemblies of God, for example, is in Springfield. But even the Evangelicals like Bp. Johnston. They and the fundamentalists can never accuse him of NOT being a “Bible-believing Christian” and they don’t.

 

[robertmidwest]

After the fiasco up here? No. We have lost members, closed schools, and 100,000+ signed petition to get rid of Bishop Finn. Pope Francis isn’t going to assign someone who will continue to divide the diocese. Whoever he assigns will be picked to bring unity.

I assume you are being factitious to stir up trouble.

I live in the diocese. I have three kids in the school system. I interact daily with parishoners, parish employees, diocese employees. Most are very happy that he is gone. These are pro-life, family oriented people not left wing zealots. Finn had the support of the far right, but no one else.

 

[Arandur]

I live in the diocese. I have three kids in the school system. I interact daily with parishoners, parish employees, diocese employees. Most are very happy that he is gone. These are pro-life, family oriented people not left wing zealots. Finn had the support of the far right, but no one else.

What do you consider “far right,” and why?

I find that it is important to identify pejoratives and extreme characterizations, because such labels are often inaccurate, or agenda-driven code-words, and as such are unnecessarily divisive.

I use labels, too. I try to be careful about my meanings of them.

In this case, it sounds to me like “far right” is being used in the sense that the media uses it, when what is labeled as “far right” is really just “those who actually affirm and support Church teachings and traditions.” Relative to those who would, by comparison, be considered “moderate” or “liberal,” by which is meant those who dissent from most Church teachings and accept instead the social mores of the culture and many of the political agendas of the Left.

If that’s what we’re dealing with here, I reject the characterization. Faithfulness to Church teaching and tradition should never be deemed “far right.” It should only be deemed “Catholic.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

I live in the diocese. I have three kids in the school system. I interact daily with parishoners, parish employees, diocese employees. Most are very happy that he is gone. These are pro-life, family oriented people not left wing zealots. Finn had the support of the far right, but no one else.

Well, and apparently he had some popularity with prospective candidates for the priesthood as well, since his is now one of the top diocese for vocations whereas before him it was nowhere near that. More ordinations in a diocese of 130,000 than the City of New York with 2.8 million Catholics? I would say that’s something.

And the orders of sisters who are faithful to the Magesterium of the Church. They liked him too.

And the people who moved to that downtown cathedral knowing their task was to restore it. They probably liked him too.

Well, and maybe the people at Hallmark and vicinity who attend Mass at that Italianate-looking (gorgeous) church there that he restored. They might like him.

And I imagine those who couldn’t stand seeing their faith attacked by that Fr. McBrien in the diocesan paper all the time liked Finn as well when he stopped it.

There might have actually been some outside the “far right” who had good reason to like Bishop Finn.

 

[robertmidwest]

I am convinced Bp. Finn is a faithful and genuinely good man, but one who was ultimately defeated by the New Church establishment because he acted so directly

Yes. He alienated himself.

 

[JimG]

Some more blog commentary on Bishop Finn:

Rorate Caeli
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/for-record-bishop-robert-finn-steps-down.html

Justice for Bishop Finn
justiceforbishopfinn.com/

Curmudgeon’s Cave
curmudgeonkc.blogspot.com/2015/04/bishop-finn-he-missed-his-chance-to-be.html

 

[robertmidwest]

Some more blog commentary on Bishop Finn:

Rorate Caeli
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/for-record-bishop-robert-finn-steps-down.html

Justice for Bishop Finn
justiceforbishopfinn.com/

Curmudgeon’s Cave
curmudgeonkc.blogspot.com/2015/04/bishop-finn-he-missed-his-chance-to-be.html

The curmudgeon article is wrong. Finn never reported Ratigan. Someone underneath did without Finn’s authorization.

Ratigan was caught taking pictures up a young girls skirt by the parent. That would be a third party complaint wouldn’t it?

I don’t have time to read the other two right now.

 

[Arandur]

Well, and maybe the people at Hallmark and vicinity who attend Mass at that Italianate-looking (gorgeous) church there that he restored. They might like him.

Our Lady of Sorrows? Love that church! Good pastor, too, from what I can tell. Daily Mass there is pretty well attended (as it is at the Cathedral), and Holy Day Masses during the workday are VERY well attended.

Same with Our Lady of Perpetual Help (the Maronite parish nearby). Even more beautiful, IMO, and even better attended. They seem to have Cristo Rey high school attached–which is an AMAZING high school model that should be repeated everywhere.

Also, Our Lady of Perpetual Help ALWAYS has long lines for daily confession prior to Mass–that’s rare and wonderful! OLOS usually has a few, and the Cathedral has fairly long lines for its Tuesday/Thursday confession.

Vocations, confession, daily and Holy Day Mass attendance, adoration attendance…if these are healthy and increasing, I think they are better barometers of how well a parish or diocese is doing than simple overall numbers of people who consider themselves part of the diocese, or even weekend Mass attendance.

Quality, not quantity. Fidelity, not merely keeping appearances. While I certainly don’t want people leaving the Church, and it makes it harder to reach them in the future, I think it’s been proven time and time again that capitulation to the culture results in general decline, whereas fidelity is the only thing that causes sustained growth.

We’re not going to see masses flocking to the Church if it suddenly somehow decided to agree with the culture on a variety of issues. Quite the opposite.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Our Lady of Sorrows? Love that church! Good pastor, too, from what I can tell. Daily Mass there is pretty well attended (as it is at the Cathedral), and Holy Day Masses during the workday are VERY well attended.

Same with Our Lady of Perpetual Help (the Maronite parish nearby). Even more beautiful, IMO, and even better attended. They seem to have Cristo Rey high school attached–which is an AMAZING high school model that should be repeated everywhere.

Also, Our Lady of Perpetual Help ALWAYS has long lines for daily confession prior to Mass–that’s rare and wonderful! OLOS usually has a few, and the Cathedral has fairly long lines for its Tuesday/Thursday confession.

Vocations, confession, daily and Holy Day Mass attendance, adoration attendance…if these are healthy and increasing, I think they are better barometers of how well a parish or diocese is doing than simple overall numbers of people who consider themselves part of the diocese, or even weekend Mass attendance.

Quality, not quantity. Fidelity, not merely keeping appearances. While I certainly don’t want people leaving the Church, and it makes it harder to reach them in the future, I think it’s been proven time and time again that capitulation to the culture results in general decline, whereas fidelity is the only thing that causes sustained growth.

We’re not going to see masses flocking to the Church if it suddenly somehow decided to agree with the culture on a variety of issues. Quite the opposite.

I agree in every respect. I think people respond better to clarity than they do to vague messages, even if the clarity is more demanding, which clarity usually is.

I also think people are inspired by beauty, even grandeur. Some visual effects have served the test of time, while some have not. I don’t believe it is ever a mistake to utilize time-tested visuals, whereas experimental ones are exactly that…experimental.

I didn’t remember the name of that church by Hallmark. I was driving to the downtown for a business purpose one day and saw it there. Absolutely mind-bogglingly beautiful. I later went there just to see it. Later still, I asked a KC person about it and they told me the grounds are maintained by Hallmark as part of a land swap deal for Hallmark’s parking. Also, I was told part of the deal was that guests at Hallmark are told about the church in case they want to go to Mass there, and apparently a lot of people do.

I was unaware of Our Lady of Perpetual Help. I’m not from KC. But I have never been to a Maronite Mass. I’ll remember what you said. I would like to do that.

 

[weller2]

As you know, the photos were all re-recorded and given to Lathrop & Gage; later to the police. Bp Finn conspired with no one, destroyed nothing, trafficked in nothing. It serves no purpose here to “convict” him of something he didn’t do just because one hates Finn for whatever other reasons one has to hate him.

Unfortunately, you are wrong. The copy of the photos held by Lathrop & Gage was next to worthless for evidence purposes. There are very specific rules which dictate what digital evidence is admissible in court, in particular, the best practice is to take the suspect’s drive, and send it directly to the certified lab which knows how to correctly make a forensic copy and analyze the digital evidence. This is because the prosecution has to prove that the files were not planted on the drive by a third party, and this requires in-depth analysis of certain data structures which are specific to the drive. If you take out a collection of files in court, all the defense attorney has to do is to ask: “How can we know, that the files were even on the drive in the first place, or weren’t planted there by a diocesian employee handling the laptop?” Well, we can’t. No pictures, no crime. And yes, there was at least one case when X planted child porn on Y’s drive and called the police, and the forensic analysis has shown that it was what happened. Further, even if you have a correctly made forensic copy, then the defense can still challenge it by demanding it to be compared with the original drive, because “How do we know this was taken from the subject’s laptop?” Again, the lack of original drive to compare against may (in fact, should) be enough to conclude that there is a reasonable doubt.

So the primary evidence regarding possession of child porn by Ratigan was the hard drive in Ratigan’s laptop. Bp Finn gave the drive with child porn to Ratigan’s brother, which, by definition, is trafficking. Further, Ratigan’s brother destroyed the drive, which, with the drive being the primary evidence, counts as destruction thereof. A DA could therefore argue that Bp Finn was complicit in the destruction of evidence. The DA could also argue, that Bp Finn and Ratigan’s brother conspired together to destroy evidence.

If you have evidence of trafficking, destruction of evidence, and criminal conspiracy, it does not take much to convince the judge to sign a search warrant to raid the diocesian offices. Call the SWAT for extra bang, inform the press, and the next thing you have is worldwide TV images of a Catholic bishop in handcuffs with “PEDO RING LEADER” in red letters below. Does not really matter that six months from now the court will rule that the bishop was just inept, there was no ring of any kind, and he will get out of this with a suspended sentence; the message will be delivered and the damage done.

Now: since you believe that Bp Finn’s prosecution was the result of some evil leftist conspiracy, led by the DA, then please explain to me how come they have passed up on something like that? Truly evil actions are usually planned, logical, and well thought out.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Unfortunately, you are wrong. The copy of the photos held by Lathrop & Gage was next to worthless for evidence purposes. There are very specific rules which dictate what digital evidence is admissible in court, in particular, the best practice is to take the suspect’s drive, and send it directly to the certified lab which knows how to correctly make a forensic copy and analyze the digital evidence. This is because the prosecution has to prove that the files were not planted on the drive by a third party, and this requires in-depth analysis of certain data structures which are specific to the drive. If you take out a collection of files in court, all the defense attorney has to do is to ask: “How can we know, that the files were even on the drive in the first place, or weren’t planted there by a diocesian employee handling the laptop?” Well, we can’t. No pictures, no crime. And yes, there was at least one case when X planted child porn on Y’s drive and called the police, and the forensic analysis has shown that it was what happened. Further, even if you have a correctly made forensic copy, then the defense can still challenge it by demanding it to be compared with the original drive, because “How do we know this was taken from the subject’s laptop?” Again, the lack of original drive to compare against may (in fact, should) be enough to conclude that there is a reasonable doubt.

So the primary evidence regarding possession of child porn by Ratigan was the hard drive in Ratigan’s laptop. Bp Finn gave the drive with child porn to Ratigan’s brother, which, by definition, is trafficking. Further, Ratigan’s brother destroyed the drive, which, with the drive being the primary evidence, counts as destruction thereof. A DA could therefore argue that Bp Finn was complicit in the destruction of evidence. The DA could also argue, that Bp Finn and Ratigan’s brother conspired together to destroy evidence.

If you have evidence of trafficking, destruction of evidence, and criminal conspiracy, it does not take much to convince the judge to sign a search warrant to raid the diocesian offices. Call the SWAT for extra bang, inform the press, and the next thing you have is worldwide TV images of a Catholic bishop in handcuffs with “PEDO RING LEADER” in red letters below. Does not really matter that six months from now the court will rule that the bishop was just inept, there was no ring of any kind, and he will get out of this with a suspended sentence; the message will be delivered and the damage done.

Now: since you believe that Bp Finn’s prosecution was the result of some evil leftist conspiracy, led by the DA, then please explain to me how come they have passed up on something like that? Truly evil actions are usually planned, logical, and well thought out.

I truly am amazed at the hatred of Finn I see on here. Not hard to guess the reasons for it. Really, it further demonstrates the motivations underlying the prosecution of Finn.

The “chain of custody” was compromised at the very beginning, and not by Finn or even Murphy. It was compromised when the very first person who saw it took physical possession of the computer. That was compounded when another chancery person messed around trying to open images that could actually have been downloaded by the process of looking. If Ratigan had not owned up to having knowingly possessed the images, he would have skated.

As it was, Ratigan was convicted based on the images that had been at Lathrop & Gage; not because it existed, but because Ratigan admitted early on to having knowingly and intentionally had specific images in his possession.

Nor does the conspiracy theory work. Finn’s office specifically preserved the images to which Ratigan had already admitted, and Finn aided in that preservation. It might be informative to do a little research into the rules of evidence in Missouri. If you do, you will find that an electronic copy can serve as an original in evidence. But that’s not the problem with the evidence. The admissibility problem was created at the very beginning, before Finn even knew about it. But as I said, Ratigan himself cured the defect.

 

[Seminarian_X]

I live in the diocese. I have three kids in the school system. I interact daily with parishoners, parish employees, diocese employees. Most are very happy that he is gone. These are pro-life, family oriented people not left wing zealots. Finn had the support of the far right, but no one else.

He also had the support of his 32 seminarians, nine of whom will be proudly ordained by Bishop Finn in his cathedral in a few weeks. Cue the wailing and gnashing of teeth from certain quarters.

And if you think all 32 of those seminarians are “far right” (they aren’t) then you have demonstrated the folly of applying American political terms to members of the Church as if such terms are instructive of anything.

 

[weller2]

I truly am amazed at the hatred of Finn I see on here. Not hard to guess the reasons for it. Really, it further demonstrates the motivations underlying the prosecution of Finn.

Again, I am completely not interested in the supposed political context of the case. Nor do I have any feelings towards Bp Finn, one way or another. He’s just a name on documents to me.

Finn’s case is landmark, because it marks the end of an era where the state would bend over backwards to avoid prosecuting a bishop (see Boston). In Kansas, the DA decided prosecute, although the prosecution was still greatly restrained (again, Finn could have been easily charged with 3 felonies). Oh, and by the way, this case (like Cloyne) also demonstrates that the supposed “zero tolerance” policy is window dressing, and protection of pedophiles continues. So it appears to me that we will see another case in a few years, but the next time, the DA will not show restraint, and will go after the bishop to the fullest extent of the law.

And rightly so, may I add. Clerical pedophilia is a cancer; this cancer must be excised. Since the Church is apparently unable to do it by itself, the lay Catholics in law enforcement will – and they will have no mercy. You’ll see SWAT rides, RICO charges, and very long prison sentences.

 

[Seminarian_X]

Again, I am completely not interested in the supposed political context of the case. Nor do I have any feelings towards Bp Finn, one way or another. He’s just a name on documents to me.

Finn’s case is landmark, because it marks the end of an era where the state would bend over backwards to avoid prosecuting a bishop (see Boston). In Kansas, the DA decided prosecute, although the prosecution was still greatly restrained (again, Finn could have been easily charged with 3 felonies). Oh, and by the way, this case (like Cloyne) also demonstrates that the supposed “zero tolerance” policy is window dressing, and protection of pedophiles continues. So it appears to me that we will see another case in a few years, but the next time, the DA will not show restraint, and will go after the bishop to the fullest extent of the law.

And rightly so, may I add. Clerical pedophilia is a cancer; this cancer must be excised. Since the Church is apparently unable to do it by itself, the lay Catholics in law enforcement will – and they will have no mercy. You’ll see SWAT rides, RICO charges, and very long prison sentences.

The DA in Kansas would have had very little success attempting to prosecute Bishop Finn considering Bishop Finn is not in Kansas.

 

[Arandur]

I was unaware of Our Lady of Perpetual Help. I’m not from KC. But I have never been to a Maronite Mass. I’ll remember what you said. I would like to do that.

Sorry, it is a Redemptorist parish. For some reason I always want to call it Maronite, even though I’m aware that’s a different rite. It’s on Broadway just a little way South of the Liberty Memorial. Beatiful and well-attended.

redemptoristkc.org/ The link to their FB site is helpful for more pictures.

 

[Ambrose]

This case was NEVER about protecting children. The diocese is NOT ‘safer’ now that he’s gone.

When Bishop Finn came to KC, the liberals had strong hold on the diocese for years and the ‘National Catholic Distorter’ was pleased. After a period of time observing as a coadjudtor Bishop, he made changes and in a well entrenched liberal establishment.

He never had a chance in this diocese being Opus Dei, conservative, he had The Distorter, the local paper The KC Star and big money liberals against him. He came out as being VERY pro life when it was being soft peddled for feeding the poor by the previous regimes. The Stowers institute, who preformed embryonic stem cell and contributed to local parishes in KC were among his enemies.

That said, he didn’t consult the people who were used to being consulted. He was authoritarian compared to the two Bishops who preceded him in dealing with others and he never had experience being a pastor himself. He made enemies, he had his faults, he was ‘too Catholic’ for progressives who had gotten by with having a Bishop who would more or less let them alone.

Kansas City lost a good and Holy man due to politics. Make no mistake about it. Please pray for our diocese, we’re VERY divided right now, and the next guy will really have his hands full.