Bishop Finn must be in agony right now.
Here’s a man who arrived in Kansas City from St. Louis six years ago, riding the crest of a big conservative wave that Pope John Paul II had set in motion in an attempt to wash liberalism out of church hierarchy.
Attaining the rank of bishop at 52 years old, he must have had visions of rising in the ranks, becoming at least a cardinal and — who knows what he saw in his dreams? — maybe the first American pope.
And now? His career is in tatters. Everywhere he turns — even to the editorial page of The Kansas City Star — he sees and hears calls for him to resign as a result of the latest priest-impropriety cover-up.
One of his priests, Shawn Ratigan, is in jail — six months after he should have been because of Finn’s foot dragging — and another, Michael Tierney, was suspended last week after a retrospective, hurry-up review found “credible reports alleging sexual misconduct with minors.”
Finn has been scrambling around, doing his mea culpas, hoping to hang on amid a situation that seems to be building to a crescendo. I was astounded, for example, to open the paper Saturday and read the editorial calling for Finn to resign.
Historically — probably because the editorial board sees its mission as primarily secular in nature — The Star has steered clear of religious matters on the opinion front. For the paper to plunge head deep into the controversy is a strong signal of the degree of the problem.
“…there was a disturbing pattern in his diocese,” the editorial states. “As of now, 18 current and former priests have been accused of abuse. Given those numbers, Finn can reasonably be held to a higher degree of diligence than he exhibited. And it’s understandable that some parishioners perceive a cavalier manner in which he loitered with allegations.”
The Star calls him cavalier. Others have characterized him as “self-important.”
Relatively few Catholics have risen to Finn’s defense. So obvious are Finn’s shortcomings that even most of the knee-jerk defenders of Catholic hierarchy have been silenced.
And listen to what a couple of committed Catholics have had to say about Finn.
Richard E. Smith, Altamont, Mo., letter to the editor, June 3:
“I have always been a Catholic. I will always be a Catholic. I don’t really know how to be anything but a Catholic. I firmly believe in the infallibility of the pope in matters of faith. Bishop Finn, you are hurting my church. Please resign.”
Ken Hansen, Smithville, letter to the editor, June 4:
“…the bishop was dishonest with his flock. He says he didn’t bother to look at any pictures, interview Father Ratigan directly or read a warning letter from the principal at St. Patrick School. If protection is truly a top priority, Bishop Finn should have been totally involved. He gave this whole thing about as much priority as a bid on a new furnace.”
Bishop Finn will probably not be fired, partly because of the church’s goofy managerial system.
The pope appoints all 5,065 bishops (as of the beginning of this year), and only the pope can remove a bishop…Now, whoever heard of a manager having 5,000 direct reports? How could one person possibly keep tabs on 5,000 employees?
I wonder if Pope Benedict XVI is even aware of the problem in the Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese.
Here’s another strange fact, from a website called catholic-pages.com.
“All bishops are also required to submit a quinquennial report to the pope (i.e, every five years) reporting on their diocese and any problems that may have arisen in their diocese or difficulties the faithful are facing. At about the time that this quinquennial report is required, the bishops of the region make their visit ad limina Apostolorum where they travel to Rome to pray before the Tomb of St Peter and to meet individually with the Holy Father to ensure he is kept aware of the state of the Church throughout the world.”
With 5,000 bishops, that means the pope would have to meet with an average of 1,000 bishops a year, or about three bishops a day just to catch up with what’s going on in the far corners of the world… like America.
Unfortunately, Finn has been here six years, and if he had his quinquennial meeting with the Holy Father, it would have taken place last year.
Rats!
Now, you might be wondering what kind of activity or heresy is likely to get a bishop in deep water. I did a Google search for bishops getting fired, and the most recent case I found was that of an Australian bishop, William Morris, whom Pope Benedict dismissed early last month because he had argued that the Catholic Church should consider ordaining married men and women because of a shortage of priests.
The Morris flap had gone on for five years, and his diocese is in an uproar as a result of Benedict’s decision.
You see, then, what the church’s idea of a grave problem is.
As for Finn and the possibility of resignation…probably won’t happen. Without a clear threat to his job status from Rome, I suspect he’ll keep apologizing, keep meeting with angry Catholics (as he did Friday night at St. Thomas More) and try to ride out the crescendo.
Of course, as I’ve said before, that route will clearly cost the diocese members and money. It’s been gratifying to me — a former Catholic who left because the church was looking backward instead of ahead — to see the reaction to Finn’s attempted cover-up.
He now regrets it. He’s miserable, and people of good sense are fuming. It’s a bad combination, and it’s impossible to predict what’s going to happen.
Here’s the worst case scenario, again from catholic-pages.com:
“All bishops, (except the pope, Bishop of Rome) are required by Canon Law to tender their resignation if sickness or other grave reasons make them incapable of carrying on their role, or when they reach the age of 75.”
Hate to say it, but it’s possible we could have Finn another 17 years.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
With the Star adding its voice to those calling for vigorous prosecution of those responsible, is there likely to be a grand jury convened on the behavior of the chancery?
There ought to be federal charges as well.
Great article.
I was very interested to read that a bishop has been dismissed because of speaking against the church rule that married men and women can not be priests but Bishop Finn will not be dismissed for…a crime? I consider it a crime although I know others may not.
I’m going to assume The Star is allowing these editorial statements now just to draw in more than readers on this hot topic.
Again, great article, great perspective.
I’m skeptical about whether any charges will be forthcoming against the bishop (and I think he’s the only one who could conceivably be held accountable). He showed terrible judgment, but I think it would be very difficult to prove criminal intent.
I think the likelihood of him being charged would have risen significantly had the school principal copied the bishop on her warning letter and sent it registered mail to the bishop. (I believe it was hand-delivered to the vicar general.) As it is, the bishop has some deniability.
Of course, there’s also the matter of him not looking at the pictures and not referring the case to police six months ago. On those points, also, however, I think criminal intent would be difficult to prove. I’m betting we’re not going to see the bishop in a perp walk.
Thanks, Lisa. Welcome to the comments department.
Bishop Finn will go to jail for reckless child endangerment and other crimes.
Imagine if this happened at a Chucky Cheese Restaurant. An employee had child porn pictures that he took of children inside Chucky Cheese. Management knew about it, but hid the pictures and allowed the employee further access to small children.
Customers would boycott Chucky Cheese and have every manager thrown in jail, all the way up to the CEO.
We can’t expect the Catholic church to rise to the standards of Chucky Cheese, but they should at least have to follow the basic laws of humanity and the laws of the land.
If prosecutors show some spine & convene a grand jury or two, the odds of Finn being charged will rise dramatically.
David Clohessy, Director, SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, (7234 Arsenal Street, St. Louis MO 63143), 314 566 9790 cell (SNAPclohessy@aol.com)
The Missouri Statute on reporting of reasonable suspicion of child abuse contains no criminal intent component. In reading the statute, I don’t see how charges aren’t forthcoming. Additionally, the KC Star reported the FBI is investigating the matter. Look for charges from that investigation as well.
I haven’t read the statute, Casey, so you’re ahead of me…Still, it’s just hard for me to imagine the bishop being charged. It would boggle the mind, at least mine.
Great article Jim. I am a former Catholic as well. When people question me on why I left the church, I’m just going to forward this link. I guess there are some other reasons too, but this is at the top of the list.
A few days ago Matt Lauer from the TODAY show had a special audience with the Pope. I almost always watch NBC being a former employee, but this time, I couldn’t change the channel fast enough.
Thanks, Bryan. I don’t think I knew you were a fellow defector. We’re both “in a better place now,” as they sometimes say at funerals.
Jim, Jim, Jim.
Let me remind you. Bishop Finn is only taking a hint from his former Archbishop Rigali, of St. Louis. Rigali had the same problems: the St. Louis paper was writing weekly articles for him to go, people were leaving the church, and the Catholic laity was screaming for his head.
Then, of course, Rigali was “promoted” to the Vatican, and made a Cardinal of the Church. Bishops fall upward, not down.
Oh, God, that’s funny, Willie! And I love your ongoing analysis of the entire church direction: “Everything will be fine if we just get more Catholic.” Circle the wagons, tighten the noose and strangle the faithful with dogma.
Another great take, Fitz.
Patrick O’Malley KILLS it with his analogy. If this happened at a local retailer, or, restaurant…
Great analogy.
Did anyone go to the St. Thomas More meeting?
What happened there?
The Star had a short story Saturday morning, Chuck, but I can’t find it in the electronic library…It was a closed meeting, but Glenn Rice, the reporter who went to the church, interviewed a few people afterward (the meeting was closed), and the prevailing sentiment seemed to be “off with his head.” They were pissed.
Here’s yet another Finn “mea culpa,” as reported in this morning’s paper http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/05/2929270/bishop-takes-responsibility-in.html#storylink=misearch
Also, three more critical letters to the editor were published today. Two of the letter writers, Christopher Korth and Julie Stutterheim of Kansas City, called for Finn to resign. I am really amazed — guess I shouldn’t be, given the gravity of the situation — at the onslaught against Finn. If he resigns, I think the only reason will be, not that he thinks he has lost the ability to lead, but that the scandal has paralyzed the diocese.
The Courthouse News Service website has details of the lawsuit.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/06/37101.htm
Thanks, Matt. Good information.
It is always possible that Bishop Finn wins in court, because the Catholic church will pay for the best lawyers out of your parish donations. It is possible that they will find a loophole and save one guilty man.
However, the Catholic church will lose badly in the court of public opinion, and thousands of Kansas City Catholics will leave over the next few months.
The only long term hope for the church is to assemble a Grand Jury like they did in Philadelphia and find the truth, then clean it all up.
I was at the meeting at STM for a short time. The first speaker was a longtime parishioner who was a survivor of abuse by two priests. He gave a powerful speech detailing his experiences and concluded with the statement that Finn is not the church, WE are the church. Finn is a guest in our diocese and he is no longer welcome here. Other speakers reiterated that the hierarchy will be awfully lonely without the rest of us and we are not pleased with him. There were some occasional speakers in defense of Finn, almost all of whom had to mention their agreement with his anti-abortion obsession. I would like to see that “pro-life” interest extend beyond birth.
I don’t necessarily think he should resign, but instead take the fear he feels right now (he looked like crap) and use that to learn and grow. I may be too hopeful on that front, no one has ever gotten through to him before. He is so arrogant.
Wow…You’ve gotta love the line about Finn being “no longer welcome here,” as well as the assertion that “the hierarchy will be awfully lonely without the rest of us.” Before this, Finn already had driven a wedge between clergy and laity, and, while people didn’t like it, most didn’t leave the church over it. But this is different; this is pull-up-stakes-if-he-stays time. That’s what I think would be his motivation for resigning, if it should come to that. If he doesn’t leave, a lot of others will, and the diocese will be left close to high and dry.
It’s interesting that those who seem to attack the church the most vigorously are “former” Catholics who often left the church because they felt it should change its rules to suit their individual needs.
It’s also interesting to see that Patrick O’Malley posts the same drivel on blog sites all over the country. Oh, and by the way, his posts always link to his personal speaking site. Trying to make a few bucks off the controversy Patrick?
Lot of people are trying to make a lot of $$$$$$$$$$ off the church these days.
That’s right. The church is the real victim here, not the children. Maybe we should send it to a victim’s advocate who will sneak its testimony to the perp’s attorneys.
Rick,
You’re so very ignorant, and so typical of a current Catholic congregation member. You immediately point absurd fingers at others, as if anyone in their right mind would think I’m doing this for business. I’ve never mentioned my business in any way.
Now, what have you done for the victims? God’s gonna ask.
Patty, I have seen your posts all over the Internet attacking the church. (And your cute little Chucky Cheese analogy is getting old.)
What have I done for victims? Prayed for them. And paid them.
What have you done? Undermine the church all over the Internet to help increase the $$$$$$$$$ settlements victims’ attorneys receive.
And drop the innocent act. Every single post you do links to your business. If you don’t want folks to link to your business why not just eliminate it?
Do that and I will believe you are sincere. Until then you are the ultimate hypocrite.