With the papal firing of Bishop Robert Finn, at least two significant diocesan issues have been left swaying in the wind.
They revolve around Finn’s recent reassignment of some priests. Two of those reassignments were immediately controversial, and they probably will be one of the first orders of business taken up by the diocese’s interim administrator, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Kansas City, Kansas, archdiocese.
Every year, the bishop reshuffles some priests, usually those who have been at their existing parishes at least six years. This year, Finn announced the reassignments several weeks earlier than usual, which, in itself, raised eyebrows.
Under Finn, the reassignments have always been heavily tinged with diocesan politics; it can be a nasty business for those not in Finn’s good graces.
Listen to the assessment of Rev. John Wandless, a retired priest who lives in the South Plaza area. (For the record, Father John and I are friends and have worked on a couple of political campaigns together.)
“I thought something was going on two weeks ago when Bishop Finn made some scorched-earth pastor assignments sending ultra-conservative pastors to moderate parishes and pastors from moderate/liberal parishes to the boondocks… In other words he was putting his boys into choice assignments — just before he was called to Rome — without regard, it seems to me, for the best interests of the parishes.”
**
One of the controversial reassignments was the proposed transfer of Rev. Don Farnan from heavily populated St. Thomas More Church in south Kansas City to parishes in Gallatin and Hamilton, Missouri. (Hamilton is directly east of Cameron; Gallatin is northeast.)
Farnan, regarded as part of the diocese’s liberal contingent, is a jewel of a priest. He has a remarkable pastoral touch, combining compassion and eloquence with common sense and terrific leadership ability. (Indicative of his giving nature, not long ago he donated one of his kidneys to a young boy he had never met.) To dispatch him to the hinterlands — while it would have been a godsend for Catholics in Gallatin and Hamilton — would have been a tremendous under-usage of his talents.
This morning, Farnan graciously granted me a telephone interview and laid out the details of the brouhaha over his reassignment.
Here’s how it went:
On March 12, Farnan and Finn spoke briefly at the diocese, where Farnan had gone on other business. Finn told Farnan he was thinking about transferring him but didn’t say where. Farnan, who is in his ninth year at St. Thomas More, said that he had been thinking for a couple of years about what he might want to do next as a priest.
He told Finn he’d prefer to stay at St. Thomas More but that he was open to anything else, except that he’d like to take a sabbatical before accepting a new assignment.
Finn told him that wasn’t possible, that the diocese could not pay his salary while he was on sabbatical. Farnan dismissed the financial consideration, saying that wasn’t a problem for him.
On March 28, diocesan vicar general Rev. Charles Rowe called Farnan and informed him he would be transferred to Gallatin-Hamilton. Farnan told Rowe, as he had told Finn, that he intended to take a leave of absence before accepting any transfer.
Finn called Farnan on Holy Thursday, April 2, and they had what turned out to be a testy conversation.
They talked again about Gallatin-Hamilton, and Farnan repeated that he was not prepared to accept the transfer at that time.
“He sort of went off,” Farnan said, referring to the bishop. Finn ended the ensuing conversation by saying, “We can communicate through the vicar.”
That was Farnan’s last communication with Finn.
Farnan said he believes his situation is one of several issues that Naumann will address before Pope Francis names a permanent successor to Finn.
My guess — and this is strictly my speculation — is that Farnan will end up staying at St. Thomas More for another year to allow the dust to settle. After that, it’s anybody’s guess, but I would think that Naumann and the next bishop will be more solicitous and considerate of Farnan’s wishes.
**
Another priest-transfer controversy pertains to Visitation Church, 52nd and Main, where the Rev. Pat Rush, a widely admired priest and a former vicar general, is getting set to retire. Rush is also in the liberal contingent.
As Rush’s successor, Finn had appointed a priest named Vincent Rogers, whose unfortunate claim to fame, publicly at least, was getting arrested in a prostitution sting operation in 2003. His attorney at the time, John P. O’Connor, told me today that Rogers was not convicted. O’Connor said he didn’t remember any other details of the resolution, such as whether Rogers was ordered to take part in a diversion program.
Rogers has been pastor at St. Andrew the Apostle Catholic Church in Gladstone for several years. The announcement of his transfer to Visitation has thrown that parish — one of the diocese’s most prosperous parishes, along with St. Thomas More — into an uproar.
Another unsettling factor to Visitation parishioners, besides the prostitution sting, is that Rogers is one of a handful of priests who, as Farnan put it, “most reflect Finn’s style and personality.” That is, they are ultra-conservative.
The sting operation involved 20 law enforcement agencies in Kansas and Missouri. About 100 people were arrested after answering Internet and newspaper ads from what appeared to be escort services.
An archived Kansas City Star story from 2003 about the operation says that Rogers, then pastor at a St. Joseph parish, told then-Bishop Raymond J. Boland that he had been arrested on suspicion of soliciting a prostitute.
The story goes on to say, “Rogers reportedly told Boland that he made telephone calls to arrange for a massage and he was taken into police custody when he arrived for the appointment.”
Boland placed Rogers on administrative leave but said he had not received any complaints of “similar misconduct” during his decade as a priest.
**
My personal feeling about Rogers is that even if he was convicted, it should not bar him from serving at Visitation, assuming he has had no subsequent legal problems. If he has cleaned up his act — and remember, that was a dozen years ago — I applaud him. It goes without saying that celibacy is a difficult way of life for most people.
Still, I can understand how the arrest would be unsettling to Visitation parishioners. And I can understand, even more, parishioners’ reservation about drawing an ultra-conservative pastor.
To the best of my knowledge, the parish has never had an ultra-conservative pastor since its founding in 1909. It has been home to such great pastors as the late Msgr. Arthur Tighe, the late Richard Carney and former priest Tom Minges, who is now a minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).
Overall, a conservative priest is not a good fit for Visitation. It is a progressive congregation with many young families, a goodly number of whom are drawn to the parish because of its excellent school.
I suspect Vincent Rogers will not be going to Visitation. If I had to guess, I’d say he, like Farnan, will be staying at his current parish for another year or two.
Let’s hope Naumann rescinds these two transfer orders soon.
**
Note: If you’re waiting for an explanation from the Vatican as to why the pope “accepted Finn’s resignation,” don’t hold your breath. the announcement was made yesterday in a one-sentence news-of-the-day-type roundup. It was written in Latin…A story in today’s KC Star quotes Rev. Thomas J. Reese, senior analyst with the National Catholic Reporter, as saying: “This is typical of the way the Vatican works. It doesn’t like to explain things. It hopes that people will just be satisfied with the fact that they got rid of him.” I don’t know about you, but it’s certainly satisfactory for me!
Nothing will destroy a parish and its school faster than an ultra-conservative pastor. Christ the King at 85th and Wornall is a prime example. I think Fr. Rogers was at Thomas More several years back and he created quite a stir. He, like Ratigan, is an ideological ally of Finn. He and Visitation would fit about as well as mayonnaise in a chocolate soda. If it does happen, expect people at Visitation to have to kneel for communion. I think that’s they way it is at St. Andrew the Apostle. And can’t imagine too many Visitation parishioners wanting to make any donations or generous tithings to the church if someone like Rogers is at the helm. I don’t belong to Visitation but I’m sure that Rush cultivated a spirit of giving there.
I have heard Fr. Rogers likes to have communion railings, which would have to be installed at Vis…Ridiculous.
A former priest who is a friend of ours just sent me an e-mail saying he doubted that Naumann would rescind the transfer of Rogers to Visitation or the appointment of Rev. Richard Rocha, another arch-conservative, to succeed Farnan at St. Thomas More. Rocha currently is director of vocations for the diocese.
“Naumann and Finn are in the same ideological camp,” my friend said.
I didn’t include Rocha, Finn’s former right-hand man, in my post; 1,200 words seemed like enough for today.
…Informative comment, Mike.
“Nothing will destroy a parish and its school faster than an ultra-conservative pastor.” Mike, I think you left out one very important aspect of your opening sentence. You forgot to put in “Nothing will destroy AN ULTRA-LIBERAL parish and its school faster than an ultra-conservative pastor. So if you classify Visitation as an Ultra-Lib parish, then I might agree that Fr. Vince Rogers, though he is not Ultra-conservative, might not be the best fit at Vis. Though I am a member of St. Andrew’s I have attended many Visitation masses (and do like Fr. Rush BTW). I know some of the parishioners at Vis. Those I know are certainly not Liberal and I think that those members of Vis that I know will find Fr. Rogers to be an outstanding priest for them. In fact I think most Visitation parishioners will find him to be excellent.
I would like to point out a few success stories that Fr. Rogers has achieved in his 4 1/2 short years at St. Andrew. Within a few percentage points he has DOUBLED the number of families at St. Andrew. You don’t achieve that by being a divisive priest. People have joined NOT because of the pointer on the Lib vs. Conserv-O-Meter scale, but because Vince Rogers is first and foremost a top-notch Catholic priest. In addition, he is a great leader and great manager. He has taken a financially struggling parish and school and brought it to fiscal soundness while simultaneously renovating altars, gymnasiums, classrooms and other school facilities. He is very financially savvy.
Next, “I want to be like Mike” — or in this case-Vince. I wish I had the hard number, but look at the number of seminarians that have pursued the priesthood under Fr. Rogers. Between his time at St. Joseph and St.Andrew, I think the number that have entered the seminary under his mentorship is close to 10. I’ll wager that’s more and any other parish in the diocese, certainly on a per-capital basis. I’ll put those numbers up against the number of “Vis’s” seminarians in the same time period.
Why would so many young men want to join the seminary from Fr. Rogers’ parishes? We’d have to ask them all, but I think some would say, “I want to be like him.” He is a very sacramental priest and what I mean by that is he is a big believer in the sacraments of the Catholic Church…Shouldn’t we all? For instance, he offers confession every day. Look at their website. A list of the sacraments and links for each one of them is on the first page: http://www.sataps.com/mass-confession-times
And yes we do have a communion rail at St. Andrew, and yes many of us rolled our eyes when that initiative was introduced. Now we feel privileged that we have a rail. Would Vis get a communion rail under Fr. Rogers? Maybe, maybe not. Fr. Rogers is certainly not unreasonable. If many of the Vis congregation are hard over against a rail, I doubt he’ll install one. I don’t think it is a done deal either way. I can tell you this however, communion is faster with a communion rail than it was with a standing que line. And if we want to stand for communion, we can, although you will find almost all of us kneel.
OK, enough opining. Obviously I am a fan of Fr. Vince Rogers. We at St. Andrew would love to for him to stay as our priest. (And please don’t respond with the trite “you can have him” remark, OK?) I do think our loss is Visitation’s gain. I think if Visitation gives the man a chance and doesn’t condemn him to failure before they even get to know him, the congregation will be pleasantly surprised. Time will tell; it always does.
My goodness, kneeling before receiving the mighty and everliving God present in the Holy Eucharist, the church’s most powerful moment in prayer before Christ. .. how horrible that would be for those poor people.
I have the impression that Christ the King has been doing pretty well under Fr. Lockwood, especially with young families.
But the history of Christ the King is worth noting here, because it is full of ironies, and seems to have come full circle. One thinks of what Fr. Wandless refers to as “scorched earth” tactics by a bishop when considering Bishop Sullivan’s firing (with no notice) of pastor Msgr. Vincent Kearny, who was never to be given any pastoral assignment again, and the forced renovation in 1981 of the church interior despite protests of parishioners (whose letters and calls went unanswered). Many were left crying outside as police roped off the church while the high altar was jackhammered out. All of which is to say that autocratic tactics can be used by liberal and conservative bishops alike.
Until 2004, there simply was no place whatsoever in this diocese for Catholics of a more conservative, let alone traditional bent, unless you counted, sort of, Our Lady of Good Counsel in Westport (where Msgr. Bastress had been sent to close down the parish), and the time slot begrudgingly given to a small Latin Mass community at Our Lady of Sorrows, under severe restrictions.
One would like to think that it is a big enough diocese to permit room for a wide spectrum of liturgical approaches and catechetical styles, but I can’t help the feeling that many progressives here would like to follow the Sullivan-Boland model of eradicating every trace of anything remotely conservative.
Never at STM
In addition to the damage to one parish after another and to the healthy structures of a once-great diocese, Finn also nearly destroyed the significant ecumenical and interfaith presence of Catholics in Kansas City. It is hard not to see many of Finn’s actions not simply as conservative but also as mean. May the diocese soon be led by a bishop who respects his priests, his people and the larger community.
Vern Barnet
Founder, The Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council
Thank you, Rev. Barnet. That is quite a depressing and disappointing report on the state of ecumenical progress, or lack thereof. Finn is one of those we’re-the-only-game-in-town Catholics. There are still far too many like that. I am now a proud member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and I couldn’t be happier with where my spiritual journey has led me.
Just to follow up on the “damage” you referred to, Bishop Finn put this diocese in a downward spiral virtually from the day he arrived.
Trying to verify the names and posts of some of the good people he let go, I came across a May 12, 2006, National Catholic Reporter article by Dennis Coday. Here’s part of Coday’s analysis, which ran under the headline “Extreme Makeover.”
Finn has brought the diocese, for decades a model of the former category of church practice, to a screeching halt and sent it veering off in a new direction, leaving nationally heralded education programs and high-profile lay leaders and women religious with long experience abandoned and dismayed.
Within a week of his appointment (May 24, 2005) he:
• Dismissed the chancellor (George Noonan), a layman with 21 years of experience in the diocese, and the vice chancellor (Jean Beste), a religious woman stationed in the diocese for nearly 40 years and the chief of pastoral planning for the diocese since 1990, and replaced them with a priest chancellor.
• Cancelled the diocese’s nationally renowned lay formation programs and a master’s degree program in pastoral ministry.
• Cut in half the budget of the Center for Pastoral Life and Ministry, effectively forcing the almost immediate resignation of half the seven-member team. Within 10 months all seven would be gone and the center shuttered.
• Ordered a “zero-based study” of adult catechesis in the diocese and appointed as vice chancellor to oversee adult catechesis, lay formation and the catechesis study a layman with no formal training in theology or religious studies.
• Ordered the editor of the diocesan newspaper to immediately cease publishing columns by Notre Dame theologian Fr. Richard McBrien.
• Announced that he would review all front page stories, opinion pieces, columns and editorials before publication.
Coday went on to quote the now-deceased Rev. Richard Carney as saying that Finn “came with an agenda.”
“He didn’t ask us who we are and what we are about. He looked at it from the vantage point of a coadjutor bishop and made decisions of what he was going to do about us. … Well, we’re not used to that kind of authoritarianism,” he said. “It didn’t show much respect for prior bishops who established it that way,” Carney said. “We feel beaten up.”
My observation: Finn took a wrecking ball to what had been a relatively healthy diocese, other than clerical sex abuse having been swept under the rug, as it was everywhere else. I expect the diocese to feel the effects of Finn’s destructive tenure for many years.
Thanks for so this article so concisely stating what has gone on for the last 17 years. Embracing the future.
With all do respect, Rev. Barnet, I believe you are wrong. I would pray “may the diocese soon be led by bishops that have priests who humble themselves to the leadership of the church,” as we parishioners are called to do if we find ourselves before an ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative pastor. This is not a democracy.
Having a pastor follow his own mission, with a disregard for this bishop’s direction and, ultimately, that of the Pope that assigned the bishop to his diocese, will cause exactly what we saw with Bishop Finn. Bishop Finn had nine men join the priesthood under his watch. I dare say, his predecessor may have been a very liked, popular bishop, but he had nothing in regards to his recruitment records.
I’ll take a leader over a popularity contest winner any day.
Priest recruitment is no small matter, but it is hardly the main barometer by which Bishop Finn or Fr. Rogers should be judged. What the diocese needs is professional, balanced leadership by a bishop who refrains from playing favorites and LISTENS to people before charging off in a predetermined direction. Whatever Finn did right was far more than offset by his arrogance, high-handedness and failure to report a chronic predator.
Nice summary Jimmy. Thanks for the information.
One other significant issue left swaying in the wind with the resignation of Bishop Finn is his proposed plan to replace St. Francis Xavier grade school with an All-Catholic dormitory.
Given the City Planning Commission’s recent unanimous rejection of the proposal, and the ill will this proposal has generated in the neighborhood around the school (including within the administrative offices at Rockhurst University and UMKC), it would make sense for the diocese to table this proposal for the forseeable future.
I first intended to make that the third leg of this post, DoreDad, but, like I said in an earlier comment, I decided 1,200 words was enough!
You are absolutely right, however. The so-called Domus project, with some 237 beds, is strictly a Finn initiative. I expect it to die on the vine, although the diocese has spent tens of thousands of dollars on legal, engineering and pre-construction fees. Money down the drain. Finn is a fool, in addition to being a menace to christendom.
I wrote about the Domus project in January. Here’s the link…https://jimmycsays.com/2015/01/29/finns-final-folly/
Liberal/conservative, ultra-conservative. Looks like the tolerant left wants the local diocese to go back to the social justice days when we speak in hushed tones about our Catholic faith. The pot shots keep coming. Relax, libs, you got your pound of flesh. Attila is gone. Some of us appreciate what Bishop Finn has done for this diocese. I guess what many are praying for is to have these ‘conservatives’ marginalized like they were for years under the past two bishops whose tenure incidentally produced all the abuse the KC Star, the NCR, and other liberal outlets have all but ignored.
Yes, I think a lot of abuse occurred under Bishop Sullivan — and probably Bishop Helmsing before him — at a time when abuse in all corners of the church was being swept under the rug. Not so sure about Boland’s tenure, though; I think the worst was over by then. After that, though, Finn reopened the door, long after clerics across the globe were on notice that zero tolerance was the new order. Guess he didn’t get the memo.
As a parishioner at Visitation, all I can say is that this article doesn’t speak for me or the others with whom I associate at Vis. Fr. Pat will be missed. I don’t know Fr. Rogers, but this article seems to cherry pick evidence to make a case against him. I think Fr. Rogers would make a better pastor than this author makes as a journalist. This article is very uncharitable. Rather than labeling us as liberal and conservative maybe we can just call us all Christians.
I’d like to add my name to John Mullen’s comments. I think Fr. Rush was a fine pastor and he will be missed. I do not know Fr. Rogers, but if his past record is any indication, he’ll be an excellent leader for Visitation. I look forward to giving him a chance.
Unfortunately, it appears that parishioners of Visitation, as well as some of the staff, have spent the last two weeks saying and doing very uncharitable things. I hope for his sake that the well has not been spoiled completely.
Very dismissive but thats OK. For all his faults & yes Bishops do have faults, he never had a chance in this diocese starting with the fact that he was Opus Dei. In a liberal diocese like this, disdain for that kind of orthodoxy is built into the DNA of the KC Star, NCR and other left wingers. He shook things up in the chancellory, got afoul of the Stowers institute & their embryonic stem cell agenda, and made enemies with — as far as us ‘ultra-conservatives’ are concerned — the right people. Does anyone find it ironic that what the Stowers institute was doing was (is) in direct conflict with the teaching of the Church and at the same time Stowers contributed to Vis and its new church. Guess thats what happens when being a good Democrat is more important than being Catholic. Back to your point about abuse. Shouldn’t the question be whether or not this diocese is now more safe for children with Bishop Finn gone? Or is it about politics ?
I wish the best for Bishop Finn. I am a conservative who loves having Father Don Farnan as my pastor. He lives the word of God and walks like Jesus as much as any priest I have met. Why people make this a left/right discussion upsets me. Father Don is a spiritual leader who brings people closer to God! In my opinion, faith is about developing a deep personal relationship with God. It is not always easy and we are challenged everyday.
I love having a pastor who helps his parishioners through their journey to heaven. I always felt the Holy Spirit is alive and well when I am around my friend and pastor, Father Don Farnan. We were blessed to have him as our spiritual leader at STM. Let’s not cast stones about this entire situation. Let us pray to God that the Holy Spirit will help our diocese figure this out and move on to the greater mission of bringing people closer to God. As Father Don would always say: “Life is short, Death is Certain and God’s Love is everlasting.”
Chris Powell
St. Thomas More parishioner
Don’t be so fast to put Fr. Don in the rearview mirror, Chris. I have the feeling he’s going to be with you at least another year. I cannot imagine Archbishop Naumann honoring the wishes of a thoroughly disgraced bishop who tried to run Fr. Don out of town on a rail, in one of his last, desperate, Machiavellian moves.
Thank you, Chris. We need to stop putting labels on people and start following the lead of Pope Francis, and, oh yeah, that other guy, Jesus Christ.
Larry Engel
STM parishioner
Add to the list of simmering hot-spots left behind by Bishop Finn the whole matter of the closing of O’hara High School/construction of St. Michael the Archangel High School. After two years of Finn’s pet-project ‘Forward in Faith’ campaign, only $12M have been pledged with $6M earmarked for the Diocese. That leaves only $6M…of pledges, mind you, not actual donations…worth of support for Phase 1 of a school project estimated to cost at least $30M. The $30M, by the way, won’t even include a stadium or theatre…teams will have to play games on someone else’s turf. Conveniently left out of Forward in Faith literature was the fact that a bi-product of the new high school would be the closing of O’hara High School, which is currently celebrating 50 years of service. It’s consistent with the theorized methodology behind the controversial pastoral assignments that St. Michael would be a conservative school to replace Lasallian-oriented O’hara. What has been done to O’hara over the last two years is an absolute shame, a disgrace. and the epitome of hypocrisy from Finn and those at the Diocese who were hand-picked to ram-rod the new school into existence who espouse the virtues or providing education for young Catholic men and women while at the same time leaving a school that actually provides such an education to whither on the vine, dying a slow death. O’hara’s biggest threat and what may ultimately be it’s death-blow, sadly, have come from within; from Finn’s own office.
Members of the Diocese are one loan approval away from a big surprise. Finn has decided to double-down on an unpopular plan for a new high school and is seeking to borrow over $20M to make his dream a reality in spite of it all.
Hopefully once the other fires are put-out our new Bishop will step-back and take an objective look at O’Hara High School and the plans for St. Michael the Archangel High School. Certainly going millions of dollars into debt is not the most prudent course of action.
I had heard about that but haven’t followed it closely, mainly because I’m center-city oriented and live in Brookside…It sounds, of course, like another proposed boondoggle. My God, it’s going to take some real unraveling to get things going in the right direction, and the diocese probably is going to be strapped for money for quite a few years. Reflecting on the damage Finn has wrought is putting a chill on my exuberance at seeing him fired.
Thanks to everyone for their readership and comments today…I’m off to bed!
You’re pretty passionate for a former member of the church.
The Catholic Church is an interesting, unpredictable animal.
For all the remarks posted here, may I add the parishioners at St. Andrew the Apostle Church are very sad and upset that Fr. Vincent Rogers is being taken away from us after 4 1/2 years of service. We would love to have him stay at least that much longer. You are not the only people upset about the changes and I do agree that the priests are moved to small, out-of-town parishes when they have a disagreement with the bishop.
I, for one, am glad to see Bishop Finn’s letter of resignation, and couldn’t be happier that he will be going. That said, I don’t think anything we say or do will make a difference, and things will go as planned whether we like it or not.
I have had personal experiences with all the priests mentioned in this thread. I have admiration and respect for them all. As Chris Powell said, left and right don’t exist in God’s eyes. I am at STM and have never viewed Fr. Don as liberal or conservative, but as simply a pure and dedicated man of God. Fr. Rodgers is a committed and hard working priest with a strong faith and commitment to life. Fr. Rush has been a strong leader and has done much good for the diocese for many years. Fr. Rocha is a staunch defender of the faith and a wonderful human being.
As to Bishop Finn. If you have ever been with him in a private setting, he is a quiet, committed and respectful person. He has worked to defend the faith and do what is best for his diocese. There was one problem priest that wasn’t handled correctly. That was a mistake. But the dust up regarding Bishop Finn has never really been simply about Ratigan, that was just the hammer the “liberal” contingent has used to oust a “conservative” bishop that was in conflict with their agenda, and the story used by the KC Star and SNAP to forward their agenda against the Catholic Church.
Let me see if I have this correct — the people who have spent years trying to run Bishop Finn out of town on a rail are upset because they “think” he was trying to run someone out of town on a rail? Wow talk about hypocrisy. The people I feel for are the people of Gallatin-Hamilton — people who apparently are unworthy of having a priest of Fr. Farnan’s quality (and he is a good priest) and are now being told that he doesn’t think they are worthy either. Is this what the Holy Father is talking abut when he speaks of “careerists” in the priesthood?
Fr. Don is one of the best men I have ever known. He came to St. John LaLande in the early 2000s, shortly before my father was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and he was with my family every step of the way. His presence as my dad was dying was an immense comfort. When he was transferred shortly after my dad’s passing, it was almost like another death in the family. My husband and I were blessed to have Fr. Don officiate our wedding in 2007, even though he was at STM by that time. I pray Fr. Don will remain at a large parish where he can minister to as many people as possible; the Church needs more priests like him.
I could not agree with you more, Traci. Thanks for your testament to Fr. Don’s status as a good guy and great priest.
The bottom line with all of this is that there is far too much division in the diocese at this point in time. Hopefully, Bishop Naumann will be able to suppress that until a new bishop is installed.
Changes happen in parishes and priests are moved, we all know this happens. The changes have a basis whether they seem perverse or not. Hopefully, politics will not play a role in deciding who will lead the diocese in the future. It’s clear to me that we need a leader who can bring the people diocese together, fix the many of the parochial education problems that have plagued us for years and continue to to strengthen the Catholic Community in the Kansas City metropolitan area.
Great summary, Matt.
I think some people might be confused about the words liberal and conservative when it comes to discussion around Catholic parishes. These words do not have they same meaning as they do in American political theater. You can be a conservative Republican and be a “liberal” Catholic. Liberal Catholics are just those that embrace Vatican II, that believe we should give each other the sign of peace, that think we can hold hands at during The Lord’s Prayer, that want/allow the laity involved in parish decision making roles, and girls on the altar, etc. Those that get angry every time they hear the word liberal should not draw an erroneous line in the sand here…unless they really do want to return to Latin mass….then they have drawn their line in the right place.
When I was a reporter at The Star, I once interviewed bishop Raymond Boland about the prospect of casino gambling in Kansas City. He, of course, was against it, as I was. Somehow we got onto what Catholics might think about the matter, and he said, “The only time Catholics stand together is at The Lord’s Prayer.”
Good Point, Carey. With respect to thoughts on Fr. Vince Rogers and his leanings on Conserv v Lib Catholic views.
1. St. Andrew has as many if not more female servers and lectors and Eucharistic ministers as we do males.
2. We offer each other the sign of peace.
3. Vince Rogers relies a lot on laity for input on decisions and running the parish.
4. Yes, we do say a few of the prayers of the Mass in Latin.
…is it also my understanding that Fr. Rogers had the altar rail re-installed at St. Andrew…is that accurate?
Yes, Carey, he did. See my post at the top of this thread…(3rd one) What was initial angst over the rail has turned into an item of reverence and pride for the St. Andrew parishioners.
I am attempting to understand all of the fuss from Visitation parish regarding the assignment of Father Vince Rogers to their community . Father Rogers has been our pastor for nearly 5 years, and I can say with every confidence that he is an amazing pastor, whom we are all VERY sad to see go! He is a faithful priest, a savvy business manager, and a man who genuinely cares about his parish and his people. In his 5 years here, he has doubled the size of our parish, greatly increased school enrollment, made untold capital improvements and paid our 2.2 MILLION dollar debt down to only $200,000.
He has brought more than 20 men to the priesthood over the years, and this fall, St. Andrew alone will have upwards of eight men in the seminary, more than ANY other parish in the diocese.
The good people of Visitation have implied that Fr. Vince Rogers is somehow “not good enough” for the community of Vis. I guess if the success and well-being of your parish and people is not what you’re looking for, then he may NOT be right for you. But if you want the assurance of a pastor who will see to the well-being of every man, woman and child in the parish, then Fr. Vince Rogers is the man for you! Is he ultra conservative? No. He is however, an orthodox, faithful priest who takes care of his people. We will miss him.
Any parish would be blessed to have a Pastor like Father Don. He is a remarkable priest and truly lives his life as God’s Shepard. He leads by example as a humble and faithful servant of the Church. S.T.M. parish was heartbroken when we heard he was leaving. We wanted to make calls, sign petitions and send letters to whomever would listen, including the Pope. However, Father Don was so gracious in his explanation of his upcoming departure it didn’t seem right to taint an already painful situation with more controversy. It was particularly hard to know after his many years of serving this diocese he was being treated so poorly. Again he gave us guidance during a homily when he reminded us “we must trust in God, it is His will be done.”
As a parishioner of S.T.M. I hope the changes that were put in place will be rescinded, at least for now. With that said, Archbishop Naumann is a wonderful leader and I know we can trust that whatever decisions he makes will be in the best interests of our priests and our diocese. That’s something many of us feel we could not have said a few weeks ago.
Fascinating discussion. Once again this blog has become the focal point for intelligent and informed discourse in the metro area. Kudos to all of the civil posts on all sides of this complex issue.
Thanks, John. I really appreciate your readership and comments.
Thank you.
Speaking of civility, I think our boy Yordano and the White Sox could learn a thing or two from all the posters here. Sheesh!!
Some things don’t translate.
No kidding, Gayle! What a hothead. If he doesn’t rein himself in and doesn’t take the advice of his coaches, who undoubtedly are trying to school him in emotional control, he could cost us a lot of games.
Royals win, despite the unprofessionalism of Ventura, as well as Lorenzo Cain letting himself get baited into trying to get at the pitcher who hit him on opening day…And on that note, we will end this discussion of priests and pitchers…Thanks to everyone for reading and for your well-considered and often-eloquent comments.