At night, when he’s by himself in his spacious third-floor quarters at 20 West Ninth Street, Bishop Robert Finn is probably having trouble sleeping.
I don’t think he’s having trouble sleeping because he was convicted of covering up priest sexual abuse — the only Catholic bishop anywhere to have earned that distinction. No, I think he’s counting sheep because he’s afraid that Pope Francis is closing in on him and about to remove him from his post.
I wrote three months ago that the true test of Pope Francis would be “what he does about the cancer embodied by Bishop Robert W. Finn.”
On Monday, after months of relative silence about the clergy sexual abuse scandal, Pope Francis told reporters that three bishops were “under investigation” for their roles in the clergy sexual abuse scandal. One of the three, the pope said…
“has already been found guilty, and we are now considering the penalty to be imposed.”
He didn’t name the bishops, and he did not elaborate on the details of their cases. His comments triggered widespread speculation about the identities of the three bishops. Some writers said they thought Finn could be one of the three, while others said he probably was not.
In my opinion, however, Finn’s photo is right at the center of Pope Francis’ dartboard.
I don’t think the pope could have been clearer. Finn has been convicted in court (of a misdemeanor), and while he has received his civil punishment (two years’ probation), the Catholic Church has not handed down any discipline.
To me, that’s what Pope Francis was talking about when he said “we” are considering the penalty to be imposed.” He was talking about “we, the church,” not the state of Missouri, which has already spoken.
In the February post that I referenced earlier, I said that Pope Francis had been extraordinary as a “feel good” pope. But I questioned whether he had the courage and conviction to “gut the fish” by firing Finn. The pope could go a long way toward answering that question, I said, by making a “zero tolerance” statement on clergy sex abuse and by firing Finn.
Well, during that in-flight press conference, Pope Francis said in very strong language that he would not tolerate clergy sex abuse:
“Sexual abuse is such an ugly crime… because a priest who does this betrays the body of the Lord.”
Strong words…but he didn’t stop there. He went on to compare the sexual abuse of children by priests to a priest performing a “satanic mass,” and he said there would be no “daddy’s boys” and “no privileges” when it came to the church investigating sex scandals.
**
I have told friends and others that as long as Finn remains in office, it is a stark symbol of the church continuing to sweep its dirt under the rug.
Every day that Finn remains in office is another day of perpetuating the agony being endured by the parents of children whom the Rev. Shawn Ratigan photographed indecently, and lusted after, while he was pastor at St. Patrick’s Catholic Church in the Northland.
And every day Finn remains in office is another day of Finn getting away with failing to stop Ratigan dead in his tracks long before the bulk of his damage was done.
The church’s failure to remove Finn by now is shameful. The time for “investigation” is long past. Pope Francis needs to bring the hammer down NOW!
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
No rebuttal from me on this one Jim. Agree strongly with everything you say here.
I feel sure Jennifer would join us with linked arms on this one, Jason.
I did sing kumbya in CCD class when I was young. Then that nut from the Right to Life group came in and ruined the moment for everyone.
As long as you stand in the middle, I’m sure. :)
Call this a black and white comment if you wish, but it’s real simple for me. Pope Francis represents the good side of the Catholic Church while Bishop Finn represents the dark side of it.
I don’t see it quite so clearly…at least not yet, Mike.
I think Pope Francis will ultimately be judged by how he handles the scandal. The door is wide open for him to lay claim to the title of The Pope Who Cleaned Up the Mess, but who knows? It’s possible, although not likely after Monday’s comments, that following this Vatican “investigation,” he comes out and says something like, “After a good, long look at this, we have concluded that these men have already paid a significant price for their deeds, and the church will take no disciplinary action.
…In reporting on this post, I came across the names of three other bishops (a cardinal, who is a “bishop;” an archbishop; and a “regular” bishop, if you will) who apparently have sexual skeletons in their closets.
Josephine McKenna of the Religion News Service wrote the following in an article picked up by the Huffington Post:
* Scottish Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who resigned in February 2013 on the eve of the conclave that elected Francis. O’Brien later admitted that “there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal.”
* Polish Archbishop Josef Wesolowski, who was accused of child abuse in Poland and during his period as papal nuncio in the Dominican Republic until his dismissal last August;
* Chilean Bishop Cristian Contreras, who has been accused of abuse by other priests in his diocese.
I guess O’Brien could be under investigation, even though he has resigned, and what else can the pope do about him? Same for Wesolowski, who has been dismissed. So, the way I see it is that Contreras and Finn are definitely in the group of three who are under investigation and could be taken down by the church.
My point is that strong, decisive action is the only thing, at this point, that will convince me that Pope Francis is, indeed, entitled to be called the pope who pulled the church out of the mire.
I had a conversation with a friend a number of years ago about this whole mess. She truly believed that the Catholic church acted in good faith because they felt they could pray for the priests to heal rather than putting them in prison. Now, I do believe someone with true faith can accept this. But growing up Catholic (yes, I am very biased), I knew that had no bearing on their decision to stay silent, move the criminals to other churches and totally ignore the victims. Paying off families was their guilty plea.
For the life of me, I do not understand why Finn doesn’t resign and go off to his own private purgatory. It is unconscionable for me to understand why the members of this diocese are not pounding on his door daily to get him out.
A lot of diocesan Catholics have called for Finn’s head, Jennifer, but, as you know, only the pope can take it.
If you’re talking about diocesan priests, when you say “members,” they’ve gotta keep their traps shut or Finn might take their heads off. He can, and has, exiled quite a few priests that are out of his favor to very undesirable places, like out in the boonies of northwestern western Missouri. It can be plenty cold and lonely up that way.
Jennifer: About your CCD class…hilarious.
One of the first things the church did in this country to make sure this didn’t happen again was that they quietly shut down the so-called “pink” seminaries that were churning out the deviants. Needless to say that did not get much coverage in the media.
Oddly nough, our friend Toony Botello covered this same topic this very day and his money is on the idea that Finn doesn’t have a problem. http://www.tonyskansascity.com/2014/05/fact-check-even-bishop-finns-worst.html
Fitz, or Tony? The battle between Kansas City’s news titans begins.
I gotta get a new keyboard.