From what I’ve heard the last couple of days, I was overly optimistic that common sense would prevail in the immediate wake of Bishop Robert Finn’s firing/resignation.
There have been several disappointing, unofficial developments — disappointing from my personal perspective and that of tens of thousands of Kansas City area Catholics yearning for more enlightened Catholic leadership.
Among the developments —
:: Interim Administrator Archbishop Joseph Naumann has decided to stand behind the pending reassignment of the Rev. Richard Rocha, currently director of diocesan vocations, to pastor at St. Thomas More in south Kansas City. Rocha, a conservative priest, will succeed Thomas More’s extremely popular pastor of six years, Rev. Don Farnan, who is widely considered a liberal and progressive priest.
:: Farnan has not budged from his decision to decline a transfer to the parishes in Gallatin and Hamilton, Missouri, and instead will take a leave of absence. (He told me last week that he had also given consideration to going in a different direction altogether, perhaps working with missions or Catholic Relief Services, the “humanitarian agency” of the Catholic Church in the United States.)
:: Rev. Vincent Rogers, pastor at St. Andrew the Apostle Church in Gladstone, will, indeed, take over at Visitation Church in the South Plaza area. The prospect of an arch-conservative pastor like Rogers has so upset many in the Visitation community that the outgoing pastor, Rev. Pat Rush, who is retiring, sent an e-mail to parishioners saying, in effect, “calm down and be prayerful.”
For the majority of parishioners at Visitation and St. Thomas More, those developments are — or will be, when officially confirmed — extremely disappointing.
In my last post (and thanks again to the thousands of people who read it and the dozens who commented) I speculated that Naumann, stepping into a huge controversy, would rescind the transfers of Farnan and Rogers and reconsider Finn’s desperate, out-the-door machinations.
I guess I should have known better…A former diocesan priest who is a good friend, sent an e-mail about that post, saying: “I have a lot of doubts that Naumann will rescind the appointment of Rogers and Rocha… Naumann and Finn are in the same ideological camp.”
It appears, then, that as far as the diocese’s interim leader is concerned, it’s “full speed ahead” with the orthodoxy and rigidity that ultimately played a big role in bringing Finn down.
This is very unfortunate, but, as is always the case with Catholic Church administration, little or nothing can be done about it.
…But all is not lost. It’s important, I think, for disillusioned Catholics in the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph to focus on the larger picture because several rays of sunshine are peeking through the cloud cover.
Consider, for example —
:: “King Finn” is dead, and in Pope Francis the Church is finally blessed with a forward-thinking leader who is steadily loosening the vise that his predecessor tightened around the heads of the faithful.
Collins
:: Crux, the Boston Globe’s online site “covering all things Catholic,” reported recently that the Vatican’s special commission on clergy sexual abuse has given Pope Francis a proposal on how to discipline bishops who fail to protect minors from sexual abuse by clergy under their oversight. Marie Collins, a member of the commission, would not divulge any details but said, “It’s gone to the Holy Father and it’s up to him when he makes a decision.”
Cupich
:: The Archdiocese of Chicago recently got a new leader, Archbishop Blase Cupich, a former pastor in Omaha, who is thoughtful, intellectual and moderate. (Cupich succeeded the now-deceased Archbishop Francis George, one of Pope John Paul’s arch-conservative henchmen.)
Here’s a taste of Cupich’s approach. In April 2011, he spoke at a two-day conference at Marquette University law school. His subject was “Harm, Hope and Healing: International Dialogue on the Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal.”
Among other things, Cupich said it was essential that church officials maintain a “visceral connection” to the pain and damage done to those abused by priests, and that bishops needed to continue soul-searching or risk “regression or complacency.”
Can you imagine Finn saying anything like that? Urging church officials to put themselves in the shoes of victims of clergy sexual abuse? Hell, no! His perspective was always looking down from his lofty perch, from where he ruled with mitred head and croziered hand.
Let’s hope Francis will assign Kansas City a bishop like Cupich, someone whose eyes are open and heart is big. If that happy circumstance should come to pass, the diocese could truly get on with shedding the suit of armor that Finn has cloaked the diocese in the last 10 years.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
Fr. Rocha was at St. Elizabeth’s a decade ago and was actually a very likable priest. Very personable and he connected well with the St. E’s students. I think he will fit in fine at St. Thomas More. As for Fr. Rogers, I still stand by what I stated in your previous post.
I have sent my letter to Pope Francis recommending Rev. Tim McMahon S.J. as the permanent bishop for the KC-St. Joe Diocese. For those unfamiliar with Father Tim, he formerly served as pastor at KC’s St. Francis Xavier (“the Fish Church”) and was the Jesuit “provincial” for several years after that, in charge of the Jesuit order’s Missouri district.
You can learn more about him from the following links: https://reportingajesuit.wordpress.com/tag/tim-mcmahon-sj/page/3/
http://www.northdenvertribune.com/2010/07/arrupe-jesuit-high-school-names-rev-tim-mcmahon-sj-president/
Father McMahon is a solid administrator and great pastoral leader.
For those who agree or wish to offer up other considerations other than Naumann please send your thoughts to:
His Holiness, Pope Francis
Apostolic Palace
00120 Vatican City
For other Vatican officials the format is the following:
Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli (used just by way of illustration)
President, Pontifical Council for Social Communications
00120 Vatican City
Father Tim would be outstanding. Great suggestion, DDM.
I don’t know if Fr. Rocha overlapped with when your kids were at Viz, but early on he was sent to be Norman Rotert’s assistant. As I remember, in 3 or 4 months he requested a transfer because he absolutely did not like working at Visitation with the people who worked there at that time.
Correction in article: Fr. Rocha isn’t coming from a Northland parish.
If the people who read this website are so broadminded, why not try and give these two men a shot instead of shooting them before arrival. I’m pretty sure that both of these men bore tremendous fruit in their previous assignment: Fr. Rogers more than tripled the size of a suburb parish, and Fr. Rocha more than tripled the size of our seminarians. Neither of them are perfect and no doubt have made mistakes in their past. Yet so has every human being.
Yet, apparently they did their previous assignments well. Why wouldn’t they do their next assignment well? Who are you to judge hearts? I would wager they would both show respect to our new bishop and they would show respect to all of good will in their new parishes. Heck, I’d bet they might even love those who don’t show them good will!
I would think that being a priest is counter-cultural (as is being a Christian). Being a good priest or being a good Christian isn’t about becoming a darling of the media.
Why are you all so intimidated? Why are you grabbing for stones with your hand? I feel this blog is trying create a lynch mob effect, and for that reason I hope you start a blog entitled jimmyprays.com…
Thanks for the correction, fisher1. I fixed it…
To your point, I don’t think Catholics are intimidated by the pending transfers; like me, they’re just wondering why an incoming interim administrator would stand behind at least one punitive, controversial reassignment (Farnan’s) that a discredited bishop made on the way out the door. Doesn’t seem to make sense.
jimmycprays.com…Very witty!
I think it’s a mistake for Archbishop Naumann to honor the decisions of Bishop Finn. To many, they appear punitive without consideration for Fr. Farnan or the parishioners of STM. Just because our disappointment has been tempered does not mean we are not terribly upset with this decision. Any restraint we have exhibited has been because of Father Don. He has been through a lot and we want to be as respectful as we can on his behalf.
I don’t think Archbishop Naumann is aware of what transpired between Father Don and Finn. Father Don said he has not discussed the situation with the archbishop. Frustrating but not surprising, if you know Father Don. He is very humble. The archbishop did call him and grant the sabbatical Bishop Finn had denied him. He has accepted that offer.
While this is so upsetting, I do feel we can trust that the decisions Archbishop Naumann makes are in what he thinks is the best interests of the priests and parishioners of this diocese. This has nothing to do with any incoming priest assigned to our parish. This has everything to do with our parish, the confusion and angst we have felt in this diocese. We came so close to undoing the wrong that was done and the disrespect our pastor experienced. Some of that has been corrected, but we had so hoped to begin the healing together with our pastor.
We will write to the archbishop and express our feelings, but at this point it is not likely to change anything. Finn was determined to use his power to impose his will one more time, and he succeeded.
My heart goes out to Karonkc and the other St. Thomas More parishioners, all of whom recognize that Father Don, to put it bluntly, has been screwed over. Father Don is probably the MVP (most valuable priest) in the diocese, and it is almost inconceivable that Finn and Naumann would shrug and say, “Oh, well, we’ll muddle along without him.”
I believe it’s fitting here that I tell you about a January incident that I think says a lot about how Bishop Finn feels about Father Don.
The occasion was the funeral of Tricia Thompson, who lay in a coma for 25 years after suffering brain damage in a car wreck involving a drunk driver. The Thompson family, as most of Kansas City knows, has been through hell, having lost another daughter, Amy, to murder many years earlier.
Tricia’s funeral was at Visitation, and the family requested that Father Don preside at the Mass of Christian Burial. Father Don and members of the Thompson family had become friends when Father Don was an assistant pastor at Visitation in the mid-1980s.
For Tricia’s funeral, the Visitation sanctuary was almost completely full. Among those present were nine other priests, as I recall – who sat in two front rows – and Bishop Finn, whose combination kneeler/seat was on the altar.
I sat in a front pew and had a perfect view of the bishop and Father Don. Bishop Finn did not participate in the service in any way; he either sat or kneeled, looking down for the most part, without changing expression. I suppose it’s fair to assume he was praying, but it seemed as if he was 100 miles removed from the liturgy that was taking place a few yards away from him.
It became even odder when Father Don delivered a tremendous eulogy that was alternately funny (talking about some of Tricia’s tomboy adventures) and heart wrenching (talking about everything the Thompson family had been through). And yet, our bishop sat there, continuing to look down, showing no reaction whatsoever. No laughter, no look of pain, no change of expression.
Like I said, maybe he was praying his heart out the whole time and I’m doing him a terrible disservice. But it struck me as totally bizarre. So bizarre that I had the impression that he simply wanted to remain aloof from anything and everything that Father Don said.
Who knows? With the benefit of hindsight, it’s entirely possible, the way I see it, that Bishop Finn was sitting there thinking about how he was going to remove Father Don from the urban setting in which he excels and banish him to the hinterlands.
Very disturbing to hear that story. I’m not surprised the Thompson family asked Fr. Don to preside. My father just passed away in Feb. The number one priority we had as a family was to have Father officiate at his service. Fr. Don was out of town so we had to wait a few days although he had generously offered to come back early. When Dad found out he had cancer, Fr. Don was the second one to find out. That is how much he meant to Dad and to us.
I realize it is the norm for priests to be transferred every 6 years or so. I think it is time to rethink that. Our pastor becomes a member of our family, and our families become theirs. They marry, baptize, dispense sacraments and bury us. That is a strong bond. If there is no reason to tear that partnership apart, then why do so.
We know there are many exceptions to the rule of transfers on both sides of the line. Why not preserve and respect those relationships rather than minimize them? Bishop Finn’s actions, in my opinion, were not about the good of the diocese or the parishioners of the involved parishes. Only he knows for sure what his intentions were, but we are left to assume our own conclusions. That is a very painful.
“Donna” (see below) contends politics should not be involved in Catholic Church matters. And yet Bishop Finn, from my perspective, was the most political bishop we have had, at least going back to Bishop Helmsing — who was bishop when I arrived in Kansas City in 1969.
Offered up (with empathy) as partial reparation for those times you’ve been kind enough to correct my own sputterings:
“…tends of thousands…” – plain enough;
“…loosening the vice that his predecessor tightened…” – given the context, one would certainly hope so;
Cheers.
Great catch on vice/vise. Thanks.
Please stop. As a political science & philosophy major from a Jesuit university, our beautiful Catholic faith is not political. It is incorrect and inappropriate to use political terms, such as “liberal, conservative, progressive.” You are turning our faith into a political spectacle which it is not. We are CATHOLIC, the word meaning universal. We have beliefs, doctrines, traditions, all of which are biblically based.
Catholicism is an educated and introspective religion. We must educate ourselves on the church’s teachings and understand why we have them and where they come from. What you are doing is creating a political arena where it should not be, and after all the heartache this diocese has been through you continue to pit people against each other with your words instead of uniting them.
Jesus did not intend God’s church to be political, but to be united & obedient to God’s law. Our diocese needs unity & healing. Please try and refrain from pulling people apart. Stop making this a political drama and attempt to give the reins to God in order that his will may be done & not yours. Have faith, spread faith & share faith. Show respect to all and stop the labeling & judgement.
I’m a member of a Disciples of Christ church in Olathe. About three years ago, we went through a tremendous upheaval. Several staff members brought a “formal complaint” (as provided for in denomination procedures) against the pastor, who was charismatic and extremely popular with the vast majority of congregants. I was on the “leadership council,” the lay board that had the job of investigating the charges — which were significant — and coming to a resolution.
The process and result — the pastor refused to accept a prescribed “personal improvement plan,” resulting in termination — tore the church apart. We went from about 700 members to about 350, and it was unclear if the church would survive. From the outset, people talked incessantly about healing. The fact was, however, before we could start thinking about healing, we had to push through the extremely difficult issues that divided us. That was the political part, and it was unavoidable.
With a lot of belt tightening, soul searching and help from an “intentional interim minister” who was blessed with a gentle touch and wise ways, we pulled through. Once again, we are growing, and we are more united than ever.
There’s no argument that churches need to deal with housekeeping issues. But I agree with Donna. All of this sounds like there is too much focus on the priests as head of the church instead of the one true head: God and His Son, Jesus Christ.
Bishop Finn and Bishop Naumann were both mentored by Cardinal Raymond Burke. Cardinal Burke had the duty to screen potential bishops. He only considered candidates who were anti-Vatican II. Pope Francis has relieved him of that duty, and but he continues to criticize the pope.
Do the people of Hamilton and Gallatin not deserve a good priest? Do diocesan priests not take a vow of obedience to the bishop and his successors? Doesn’t Pope Francis warn priests not to have a careerist mentality in their vocation?
Am I missing something here? It would seem that denying a rural assignment because you’re too good of a priest to be “wasted” in the country rather than humbly accepting the assignment you are given is the exact thing Pope Francis is telling priests not to do. We should be encouraging Fr. Farnan to accept this assignment with humility and joy; and then when a new bishop is named to the diocese, if he wants Fr. Farnan in a larger parish he can place him there. In the meantime, what a great thing for the people of Hamilton and Gallatin to have a caring, compassionate, truly humble priest to give them the sacraments.
Something tells me that when Bishop Finn decided to send Fr. Don to the boondocks, he didn’t think to himself, “Those fine Catholics in Hamilton and Gallatin deserve a priest of Don Farnans’ caliber.” I think it was more like, “I’m going to put that guy someplace out of sight and out of mind.”
The priest who is there now, Fr. Bob Rost, a former Visitation pastor, was sent there for the same reason; I know that for a fact.
There is a lot more to this story than is told. Fr. Farnan’s response was about him needing a sabbatical, which he was due according to Canon Law. The bishop denied him twice. Thankfully Archbishop Naumann has graciously granted Fr. Don the sabbatical, which was something he wanted before all this transpired. It is no secret our diocese has been in upheaval for years now due to decisions made by Bishop Finn. Priests, just like any of us, have the right to reflect on their lives when they come to a crossroad and evaluate their future and how they can best serve the church. It is the opinion of some that Bishop Finn’s decisions were made not for the good of the diocese but to be punitive for reasons only he knows. This is not about Hamilton, MO, or a new pastor at STM. This is about respecting a priest who has served this diocese faithfully for many years. Fr. Don is a shepherd of God who will be a blessing to those he serves whereever that maybe. For those who feel he was treated unjustly, he has been vindicated by the events of the last few weeks.
Jesus might not have intended for the church to become political. I’m sure that he also did not intend for Bishop Finn to go on the radio in 2008 telling people that it was a sin to vote for President Obama or for another bishop to refuse communion to John Kerry simply because he stated that he was pro-choice. It’s probably a safe bet too that Jesus didn’t give approval to have church leaders in Missouri in the fall of 2006 to devote entire homilies to the need to vote against the stem cell research measure. Donna, you want the author of this blog to stop labeling and judging people. I hope that you told Bishop Finn that too.
Bishop Naumann sent a letter asking Catholics to write to Notre Dame to disinvite Pres. Obama from a planned talk. Political?
Sharon Mickelson, a first-time commenter, posted a comment on the “About me” page tonight, saying the following:
“Have you seen the report that former Bishop Finn will preside over the ordination of new priests in the diocese? What did that resignation really mean?”
Yes, I saw that report in The Star. (Here’s the link..http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article19762005.html).
And you might be surprised at my reaction. Don’t sweat it! Let the guy have his final day in the sun. It has been apparent from the comments on this post and the previous two that Finn invested much capital (and so did his supporters) on getting men into the seminaries. The seven men who are being ordained in a few weeks entered the seminary during Finn’s tenure, so I don’t see a problem with him getting to “finish the job” — that is, finish that particular job.
Again, however, I think what we’re seeing is another offshoot of the buddy-buddy relationship between Naumann and Finn. They have similar philosophies, and it’s not surprising that Naumann is going to let Finn finish something that is important to him.
Soon enough, we’ll have a new, permanent bishop in here, and Finn will be completely out of the picture. You can book it.
I am a St. Andrew’s parishioner of 23+ years. We here at St. Andrew are losing our beloved pastor, Fr. Vincent Rogers, after five years. We have grown extremely fond of him and close to him, and we are all broken hearted.
Fr. Rogers came to our parish when we needed him the most. He transformed our church into a beautiful Catholic church. We have grown from 700 parish families to 1,000 families. Our school is thriving. We have had at least four young men from our parish enter the seminary since Fr. Rogers has been here.
St. Andrew has the largest youth ministry in the diocese, with some 80 freshmen-to-senior high school students. He has helped us pay down our debt. We have both girl and boy altar servers. Fr. Rogers is an admirer of Mother Teresa, which is why he put in an altar rail. Mother Teresa always knelt to receive Holy Eucharist, so why shouldn’t we? Fr. Rogers has a sincere heart, a tremendous love of the Catholic Church and Our Blessed Mother. He is a man, who is a Catholic priest and like us ALL, a sinner.
I have recently seen groups of parishioners from Visitation come out to meet him. What do they want from him? And what do they want him to say?
Visitation needs to direct their concerns to Archbishop Joseph Naumann.
If Visitation doesn’t want Fr. Rogers, we will gladly and happily keep him.
I, too, am a longstanding parishioner of St. Andrew parish, and I agree with Mary that Fr. Rogers is very good man as well as a very devout priest. He has brought a positive influence and growth to our parish. I wish I could do something that would change Archbishop Naumann’s mind, as we all at St. Andrew would agree to let our parishes keep our priests. Maybe we should all contact his representative at his office and let him know how we feel.
I think if a change is made, it needs to be done at a much later time, after all we Catholics have had to absorb. Let’s let the dust settle and bring some goodwill back.
I agree completely, Carol Jo.
Visitation is so Blessed to get a Pastor like Father Vincent Rogers! He is a reverent and prayerful Priest, who puts JESUS in EUCHARIST at the center of everything, and because of this, St. Andrew’s had grown tremendously! We have a large and vital youth group that my 16 yr. old son is a part of, we have many more vocations, and our beautiful Parish is ALIVE, with growing families, ADORATION, growing ministries, and formation programs. Father Rogers speaks the TRUTH from the pulpit and has called us, as lay Catholics to a personal responsibility toward a true relationship with JESUS, and to our brothers and sisters in Christ. Our Parish is a place that we are proud to bring visitors to because of it’s beauty, not only in the decor but in the Spirit of Christ’s Love that permeates. Of course we wish we could keep Father Rogers, but God has a plan. We will open our hearts to welcome our new Priests, and I hope those at Visitation will open their hearts to your new Priest. And most importantly let us as the lay people PRAY for our Priests and Bishops, Lets bring our complaints to Jesus, instead gossiping and causing negativity and division, which is exactly what the devil wants, to divide and destroy Christ’s One Holy Apostolic Church.