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

[johnnykins]

Possibly you are not sufficiently familiar with the plea bargaining process to realize that sometimes it is driven by sheer exhaustion of mind, body and resources. I don’t think most people realize what a huge imbalance there is between any sizeable prosecutorial team with huge resources, and an individual, even a bishop. On the one hand, there was Finn with what seems an extremely amateurish crew and 133,000 Catholics in the diocese, many of whom hated him, and a large prosecutorial team with the resources of 2.3 million taxpayers, a police force with special investigative units and a devoted media.

Should we, as citizens, worry about the ever-growing imbalance? We sure should, but that’s another story entirely.

Another story entirely…as you say.

Perhaps you are not sufficiently familiar with the fact that many many priests, bishops, brothers and sisters illegally and immorally abused children and covered it up for years and years. Perhaps you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the damage that does to a child. Perhaps you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the damage that has done to the moral credibility of the Church, her Bishops and priests? Perhaps you are living in a dream world where you believe there should not be consequences?

I have no idea why Bishop Finn plead guilty. I’ve stated that earlier in this thread. What I do know is that he did plead guilty and there are consequences to that…

 

[Ridgerunner]

Another story entirely…as you say.

Perhaps you are not sufficiently familiar with the fact that many many priests, bishops, brothers and sisters illegally and immorally abused children and covered it up for years and years. Perhaps you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the damage that does to a child. Perhaps you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the damage that has done to the moral credibility of the Church, her Bishops and priests? Perhaps you are living in a dream world where you believe there should not be consequences?

I have no idea why Bishop Finn plead guilty. I’ve stated that earlier in this thread. What I do know is that he did plead guilty and there are consequences to that…

Who could possibly be unaware of the abuse of children, and much more the homosexual abuse of young men, perpetrated by churchmen or the absolute inanity of taking a “mental health” approach to it the way so many did? Damage to a child or young man? I might possibly even see it more damaging than you do, as I am persuaded that perversions like homosexuality and transgenderism can be caused by it. I’ll admit that I am less bothered by the “covering up” from law enforcement than I am by the failure of churchmen in authority to immediately remove the perps from their places and to laicize them. There is no doubt in my mind that Finn failed in that way. But I also think he was misled, most significantly by his own people. I will, however, admit that I do not know how Canon law governs the removal and laicization of clergy.

I doubt you have any greater concern about rot within the Church than I do. My only point was that since, as you admit, you really don’t know why Finn pleaded to a piddling charge, you can’t declare its meaning. You can correct me on the following, but I don’t actually think he pleaded guilty. I believe it was what is called an “Alford plea”.

 

[johnnykins]

You can correct me on the following, but I don’t actually think he pleaded guilty. I believe it was what is called an “Alford plea”.

Consider yourself corrected:
What is the Alford Plea?

An Alford Plea is a guilty plea of a defendant who proclaims he is innocent of the crime, and admits that the prosecution has enough evidence to prove that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is entered when an accused, together with his attorney, has made the calculated decision to plead guilty because the evidence against him is so strong that it will likely lead to conviction. Typically, it results in a guilty plea of a lesser crime (i.e. second degree murder rather than first). Some states see the Alford Plea invoked frequently, such as Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Ohio—however, the United States Military, along with Indiana and New Jersey forbid its use entirely.

from legal zoom

 

[weller2]

Hi Ridgerunner,

In no way do I defend the bishop of Poznan. If what is said about him is credible, there is no excuse for it whatever. One wonders, though, whether praises supposedly issued by the Pope were really issued by him or by someone acting in his stead. After all, he did oust and rusticate Marcel Maciel once it became clear what he was doing. And Maciel arguably should have had more “clout” within the Church than did the bishop of Poznan.

First off, let me note that I have very high opinion of Card Ratzinger and his actions to remediate the situation (even if I believe that they are not sufficient). The reason I quoted Bp Paetz’s case is two-fold:

(a) it demonstrates that the Lavender Mafia is alive and well, because if the Pope could be misled into sending Bp Paetz a letter with congratulations, then the Pope can be misled into signing other things as well

(b) Bp Paetz has single-handedly done great damage to the Church in Poland because, after the accusations surfaced, he wrote a pastoral letter where he painted himself as a victim of an unjust attack of left-wing media. That, of course, has spectacularly backfired. After Paetz, the prevailing mindset in Poland is that churchmen are guilty unless proven otherwise.

We haven’t seen the end of this, I’m convinced. Any churchman of prominence who is faithful to the mission of the Church is going to be disfavored by the church “progressives” who have become so pervasive in church organizations.

That’s a very interesting point. Let make two comments:

1. I would replace “progressives” with “Lavender mafia”. Maybe in US the homosexual priests are mainly found in the liberal wing, but in Poland, they are readily found between conservatives; after all, Bp Paetz is hardly a liberal. So it’s not that I really disagree with you, but I was misled by your use of the word “progressive”.
2. I’m not sure that I agree with your theory that Bp Finn and Card Law have been set as the fall guys by the homosexual clique, nevertheless, I consider it very interesting so I will give it a benefit of doubt. But please observe that if the “Lavender mafia” can take down bishops it doesn’t like, then it can block any attempts to purge homosexuals out of priesthood. So you are actually supporting my point that the internal attempts to fix the situation will fail, and the ultimate cleansing of the Church will be done by external forces. For example, some ambitious DA frustrated with continued coverups will start raiding diocesian offices and charging priests with criminal conspiracy.

 

[Lormar]

One beef I have with the conservatives is that they put obedience to authority ahead of common sense.

A Catholic doesn’t have much choice but to check their brains at the Vatican door which is why I would never have chosen to become a Catholic as an adult. Especially in today’s Church.

By the way, I see many who are devoid of common sense. “Conservatives” don’t hold the market on it.

 

[Arandur]

A Catholic doesn’t have much choice but to check their brains at the Vatican door which is why I would never have chosen to become a Catholic as an adult. Especially in today’s Church.

How so?

I should note that many a faithful Catholic (who holds to ALL Catholic doctrinal teachings) expresses disagreement over many things the clergy or organizations do, how things are run, or what public policies are endorsed or advocated.

And even on matters touching on doctrine, there is much freedom and things are freely debated within a wide range of opinions (such as evolution).

One can disagree quite vociferously with how Bishop Finn or his predecessors have run the diocese – or even disagree passionately about what Pope Benedict or Pope Francis has done/is doing – and still be a faithful Catholic, in agreement with all matters of faith and morals.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Consider yourself corrected:
What is the Alford Plea?

An Alford Plea is a guilty plea of a defendant who proclaims he is innocent of the crime, and admits that the prosecution has enough evidence to prove that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is entered when an accused, together with his attorney, has made the calculated decision to plead guilty because the evidence against him is so strong that it will likely lead to conviction. Typically, it results in a guilty plea of a lesser crime (i.e. second degree murder rather than first). Some states see the Alford Plea invoked frequently, such as Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Ohio—however, the United States Military, along with Indiana and New Jersey forbid its use entirely.

from legal zoom

I’m not sure I would rely on legal zoom for my legal advice. Lawyers don’t think much of it because it’s not state-specific, so neither do I. In speaking to lawyers who actually do criminal cases in Missouri, I am informed it is not an admission to anything, but an acknowledgment that the evidence may be sufficient to convict and a waiver of one’s right to contest it. There aren’t many cases in which that hazard isn’t there to some degree. It most assuredly does not indicate an admission of guilt on Finn’s part.

 

[robertmidwest]

We’ll never even know whether Finn was deceived by Msgr Murphy. We don’t even know if Murphy was a card-carrying member of the Lavender Mafia who knew all along he was setting Finn up for a fall.

This is a pretty wild accusation. Was there ever any kind of indication that Msgr. Murphy had any lefty leaning?

This is really starting to look like paranoia.

I think implying something like this is out of line. This priest was part of Finn’s team. Don’t you think it more likely that he had the same mind set as Finn?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Hi Ridgerunner,

First off, let me note that I have very high opinion of Card Ratzinger and his actions to remediate the situation (even if I believe that they are not sufficient). The reason I quoted Bp Paetz’s case is two-fold:

(a) it demonstrates that the Lavender Mafia is alive and well, because if the Pope could be misled into sending Bp Paetz a letter with congratulations, then the Pope can be misled into signing other things as well

(b) Bp Paetz has single-handedly done great damage to the Church in Poland because, after the accusations surfaced, he wrote a pastoral letter where he painted himself as a victim of an unjust attack of left-wing media. That, of course, has spectacularly backfired. After Paetz, the prevailing mindset in Poland is that churchmen are guilty unless proven otherwise.

That’s a very interesting point. Let make two comments:

1. I would replace “progressives” with “Lavender mafia”. Maybe in US the homosexual priests are mainly found in the liberal wing, but in Poland, they are readily found between conservatives; after all, Bp Paetz is hardly a liberal. So it’s not that I really disagree with you, but I was misled by your use of the word “progressive”.
2. I’m not sure that I agree with your theory that Bp Finn and Card Law have been set as the fall guys by the homosexual clique, nevertheless, I consider it very interesting so I will give it a benefit of doubt. But please observe that if the “Lavender mafia” can take down bishops it doesn’t like, then it can block any attempts to purge homosexuals out of priesthood. So you are actually supporting my point that the internal attempts to fix the situation will fail, and the ultimate cleansing of the Church will be done by external forces. For example, some ambitious DA frustrated with continued coverups will start raiding diocesian offices and charging priests with criminal conspiracy.

I never said homosexuality in the priesthood is limited to “progressives”. Nor do I say it now. However, one would have to be illiterate not to know that promoters of things like “rainbow masses” and organizations like Dignity tend to be permissive in moral matters and left-leaning politically.

Nor did I ever say Finn or Law were set up by a homosexual clique. I tend to doubt they were. However, they were both greatly opposed by those who did not favor traditional views of the mission of the Church.

I will admit the following is anecdotal, but it’s an illustration of certain people who are very common in a lot of chanceries. A few years ago my daughter and her husband were appalled at a catechism series the chancery prescribed for the schools in the diocese. It was almost devoid of any teaching about the Church, morals beyond “loving,caring and sharing”, and, my daughter and her husband thought, were subtly suggestive of moral relativism. In researching they found that he series was written by a priest who was overtly pro-abortion, among other things.

They complained to the school, which announced itself powerless to do anything about the series. But they were shown the teachers’ manuals which bordered on the obscene. They then went to the director of education at the chancery. They were contemptuously dismissed and furthermore told that, no, they could not talk to the bishop about it at all. Letters to the bishop were never answered. Whether he ever saw the letters or not, they did not know.

My son-in-law then went to the Knights of Columbus in the parish, who brought it up with other chapters of the Knights, who took a close look at the series. Ultimately, the K of C sent a letter to the bishop telling him that if the series was not withdrawn, the Knights would picket the chancery until it was. The series was withdrawn within a week.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I see that Bp Finn has been replaced by Bp Joseph Naumann, formerly of the KC Kansas diocese. A friend and, in some important ways, a supporter of Bp. Finn, Bp. Naumann may well be more cautious in whom he trusts.

Bp. Naumann, as one recalls, is the one who told Kathleen Sebelius that she should not present herself for communion. I think the KC Mo diocese is in good hands with Bp. Naumann. He, too, has greatly increased the number of vocations where he was stationed before, just as Bp Finn did when he was bishop of KC Mo. He is said to be a “temporary” appointee. One hopes he will either become permanent or have a major role in the appointment of a permanent successor (as long as it isn’t our Bishop Johnston who I would not want to see go)

But he will have serious enemies too, just as Finn did.

 

[pnewton]

. Normal people dont lack such common sense, and these are educated men. .

Yes, they do. Everyone has blind spots and all will lack what others deem “common” sense in some areas. This is why we have to refrain from judging the soul of others, and why we are very bad of even judging actions from afar, as in, over the internet relying on media reports. We all hove blind spots. For some, it may be formulating strong opinions about that which they are most ignorant.

 

[JimG]

I see that Bp Finn has been replaced by Bp Joseph Naumann, formerly of the KC Kansas diocese. A friend and, in some important ways, a supporter of Bp. Finn, Bp. Naumann may well be more cautious in whom he trusts.

Bp. Naumann, as one recalls, is the one who told Kathleen Sebelius that she should not present herself for communion. I think the KC Mo diocese is in good hands with Bp. Naumann. He, too, has greatly increased the number of vocations where he was stationed before, just as Bp Finn did when he was bishop of KC Mo. He is said to be a “temporary” appointee. One hopes he will either become permanent or have a major role in the appointment of a permanent successor (as long as it isn’t our Bishop Johnston who I would not want to see go)

But he will have serious enemies too, just as Finn did.

I’ve heard that Archbishop Naumann’s appointment may really be pretty short and the replacement for Bishop Finn will be fasttracked. One never knows. But Archbishop Naumann still has not only the jurisdiction of the Kansas side of the Kansas City metro area, but is archbishop to the dioceses of Wichita, Salina, and Dodge City, making his plate pretty full. I hope that the permanent replacement will be someone both competent and orthodox.

 

[robertmidwest]

I’ve heard that Archbishop Naumann’s appointment may really be pretty short and the replacement for Bishop Finn will be fasttracked. One never knows. But Archbishop Naumann still has not only the jurisdiction of the Kansas side of the Kansas City metro area, but is archbishop to the dioceses of Wichita, Salina, and Dodge City, making his plate pretty full. I hope that the permanent replacement will be someone both competent and orthodox.

I would bet on the fast track too. This move has probably been decided months ago. It was rumored to take place right after Jan. 1st.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’ve heard that Archbishop Naumann’s appointment may really be pretty short and the replacement for Bishop Finn will be fasttracked. One never knows. But Archbishop Naumann still has not only the jurisdiction of the Kansas side of the Kansas City metro area, but is archbishop to the dioceses of Wichita, Salina, and Dodge City, making his plate pretty full. I hope that the permanent replacement will be someone both competent and orthodox.

One truly hopes Bp Naumann has a lot of influence in the ultimate replacement. Again, I hope it’s not our bishop, James Johnston. I would truly hate to lose him.

 

[SonOfMan]

Yes, they do. Everyone has blind spots and all will lack what others deem “common” sense in some areas. This is why we have to refrain from judging the soul of others, and why we are very bad of even judging actions from afar, as in, over the internet relying on media reports. We all hove blind spots. For some, it may be formulating strong opinions about that which they are most ignorant.

The average citizen would probably assault the perpetrator and call the police, most likely. We see that all the time. Not saying attacking them is the right thing to do, but a light goes off in a persons head and they know when children are involved, immediate action is needed, not a lax attitude.

Put yourself in the place of the children’s parents or even the children. Would you be okay with how this situation was dealt with as if it were nothing?

Fulton Sheen spoke of a compassion, having more sympathy and compassion for the offender rather than the victim. He called it “false compassion.”

 

[Teelynn]

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 agree with this 1000%. I read reports that he immediately called authorities and they told him the pictures did not constitute a crime. That said, he probably should have just turned him over to authorities immediately instead of moving him regardless if it looked like he was on a witch hunt, especially since all the fallout with the Priest scandal that the Church has gone through. But I can also understand that some don’t want to ‘shoot first and ask questions later’.

I am also wondering (and I haven’t heard as of late) what the Vatican is going to do with Bishop Barros of Chili who is reported to have taken active parts in pedophilia. He was assigned by the Vatican in the recent past and the faithful are protesting like crazy, but nothing has been done yet, so??? I’m hoping they put as much pressure on him as they did on Bishop Finn.