From my ranch house near Meyer Circle, I swear I can hear cheering from the area of Visitation Catholic Church, more than a mile away at 51st and Main.
More faintly, I also hear the echo of whoops and hollers from the area of St. Thomas More Church at 118th and Holmes.
The reason for the spontaneous celebrations?
Archbishop Joseph Naumann, interim leader of the Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese, announced today that he was pulling the plug on several extremely controversial priest reassignments that former Bishop Robert Finn announced shortly before Pope Francis asked for and got his resignation.
Here is the upshot of the changes, which, according to a diocesan news release, Naumann made “after prayerful deliberation and consultation with his advisors.”
:: Rev. Don Farnan, pastor at St. Thomas More, will stay on for a year instead of taking a leave of absence. Before resigning, Finn informed Farnan he would be transferred to parishes in Gallatin and Hamilton, Missouri. Farnan said he would go but only after taking a leave of absence, which, he told me, he has wanted for a long time. Farnan and Finn are far apart on the Catholic political spectrum, with Finn being ideologically rigid and Farnan being flexible and moderate.
:: Rev. Richard Rocha, a Finn ally who had previously been announced as the new pastor at St. Thomas More, will remain as diocesan director of vocations. (Rocha and Finn were so tight that a former diocesan chancellor — a layman — used to call Rocha “Finn’s wife.” Ouch!)
:: Rev. Pat Rush, who had been set to retire after several years as pastor at Visitation, will delay his retirement and remain at Visitation for a year, when the next round of priest transfers probably will be made.
:: Rev. Vincent Rogers, another Finn compatriot, who had been announced as new pastor at Visitation, will remain at St. Andrew the Apostle Church, Gladstone, where he has spent the last four and a half years.
Farnan
Rogers
In a phone conversation this evening, Farnan said he was happy he would be staying at St. Thomas More but that, in the bigger picture, he had “mixed emotions” about the state of the diocese.
“People are hurting so badly,” he said. “There’s a real sense that it’s time to rebuild. A lot of repairs need to take place.”
In that vein, he said, he was picking up on Pope Francis’ goal of “repairing” the church as a whole.
Farnan said that Naumann has been encouraging diocesan priests to help him give Finn’s successor “a church that’s healthier, holier and more wholesome.”
**
The proposed reassignments had prompted volcanic-level opposition among parishioners at Visitation and St. Thomas More, two of the most prosperous parishes in the diocese.
At first, Naumann determined to stand behind Finn’s assignments. That’s understandable on the surface, because Naumann shares Finn’s conservative philosophy and obviously wanted to honor Finn’s last major action.
On the other hand, digging in on the reassignments was unwise, with Finn receding in the rearview mirror and outrage swelling among the faithful.
Reacting to today’s news, Janet Redding, a St. Thomas More parishioner, sent me a one-word email: “Hallelujah!”
In a phone conversation later, Janet, a longtime friend, said: “I personally think a lot of Father Don, both as a person and a spiritual leader. He’s just been so great for this community. I’m glad he’s going to be with us a while longer.”
She also noted that last year Farnan donated a kidney to a young man he had never met…did so because he could and it was something he felt he needed to do.
“That’s the kind of role model he is,” Janet said.
Gerard Grimaldi, a member of St. Thomas More for about 18 years, said Farnan is the perfect blend of priest and pastor.
“Father Don has a special gift for relating to all in the parish,” Grimaldi said, “from the youth to the elderly.”
At Visitation, Rush sent an email to parishioners saying he had met with Naumann — at Naumann’s request — on Wednesday.
Archbishop Naumann said that he had received many communications from parishioners, both pro and con, regarding the pastoral appointments made by Bishop Finn and, in the case of Visitation, he thought the present climate could be an obstacle to the success of Father Rogers’ leadership.
The Archbishop stated that I could still move to the apartment I have leased in Fairway and commute the two miles to Visitation. He said there would probably be a priest-in-residence (one who works full time elsewhere but may help with some parish Masses) living in the priest residence here.
Rush
A Visitation parishioner who declined to be quoted by name because he didn’t want to take sides publicly said the announced transfer of Rogers had been “very polarizing.” The parishioner applauded Naumann for reversing Finn’s most controversial reassignments, saying, “It was a prudent decision.”
As a former Catholic, a former Visitation parishioner and a longtime admirer of Don Farnan, I second that emotion.
In my view, it’s a good day for the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph. It’s a positive and important first step toward mending a diocese that a rogue bishop figuratively hacked apart with a cleaver.
And it’s an even better day for the good and faithful parishioners at Visitation and St. Thomas More.
Yes, hallelujah!
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
Great reporting, I remember reading about this on http://www.tonyskansascity.com a few days ago. I think it’s right to put these transfers on hold. None of these people are necessarily bad but everything that Finn did needs to be scrutinized.
Tony Botello did break the story, Greedo, but his source said all the transfers were suspended. Not so. A few, but not all. Also, Tony had no specifics.
It is polarizing and embarrassing to see so many fellow Catholics attacking a man of good conscience because of his perceived level of orthodoxy. I don’t recall the so-called “conservative” faction at Vis acting like spoiled, entitled brats when Fr. Rush was posted there. I felt awful for Fr. Rogers when Finn announced that he was being assigned to Vis. With so many type-A, self-important, limousine-liberal, cafeteria Catholics I knew that he would never receive a fair chance at proving himself. A sad day for everyone in my view.
You express your position well, Don, and there are many people — but not nearly a majority — who share your view.
Or not nearly a majority *in your protestant circle of associates…which is too irrelevant to mention but more truthful. While you might have personal priest friends, and went to Vis, and are now a Protestant, do you really think you are in touch with the silent majority of Christ -centered Catholics?
I wish, Jimmy, you would move beyond your jargon of “liberal” and “conservative” – or at least not use them in such a polarizing way. The Church is always inherently both – she is conservative in her teachings (not at liberty to move away from them) and liberal in her mercy (in welcoming the lost). Good priests know how to hold these realities together. Unfaithful priests (and Christians) try or want one without the other, and end up making religion in our image and likeness, which simply reaffirms our self (either in our self-perceived rigidity or our liberality).
On a separate note, it is interesting that when Bishop Sullivan came to our diocese he was viewed as hacking it apart – I read the book that Julie Sly wrote on him. The very priests that whined about Finn and how he entered the diocese with an apriori agenda stated in that book that Sullivan did precisely the same thing. Sly said that Sullivan’s ideas “blossomed” before he came to Kansas City, and that he did not need any consultation from within the diocese to implement them, and that because of that Sullivan divided the presbyterate right in two – something he lamented in his old age.
Yesterday afternoon, long before you wrote your comment, fisher1, I stripped out all references to liberal and conservative, realizing it’s not that simple to categorize individual priests. I do know where Former Bishop Finn sits, however: As I said, it’s at the extreme end of ideological rigidity. That was the problem; he was in one place and the vast majority of priests were some distance away. And Finn did not have the flexibility, or open-mindedness, to accept anything other than his rigid orthodoxy.
…I don’t buy for a second your assertions about Bishop Sullivan. He was a nearly universally beloved bishop — never a “my way or the highway” leader, as far as I could tell. And, yes, I knew him.
Well, if you don’t buy me, than take a day and read the book on Sullivan. There were many priests who hit the highway while he was here. A woman who loved him greatly wrote it. It is a nice read, however it states quite candidly that he as a bishop knew people’s names (and he was remembered for that), yet it also states quite candidly that he came in and restructured the chancery, diocese, and set in motion a different paradigm of parish life within the very first days and months of being here. He brought in the Catholic extension society (and even wanted to make his first presbyteral appointments) without consulting in the usual manor with the leadership that was set in place when he arrived. Again, unless I am a poor book reader (which I may be), that is what the book says about him.
Bishop Finn is still a bishop. I do not know what you mean by “rigid orthodoxy”. However, it is a danger to know truths and be proud about it (the devils know truths and are proud after all); yet it is also a danger to be so open minded that we allow our brains to fall out (or to be so open minded that we dismiss the brain/teachings of the Second Vatican Council).
Again, by what authority do you state this – universally beloved? I knew him, i worked for him, im confident your assertions are superficial and Could use some fact-checking. All is well in the midst of this chaos for Christ (not pastor or bishop)-centered Catholics…so go ahead and click your heels about all of this if it feels good
The Catholic Church is interesting from the standpoint that it has not split into two distinctive sub-denominations (e.g. ELCA Lutherans VS Missouri Synod Lutherans) in the way some denominations have, and so it is interesting to see the ways in which they all manage to stay in the same house and get along.
Equally interesting are the churches, (Westside family and Church of the Resurrection here locally) who are trying to implement a balanced view of the Gospels, embracing both social justice with social responsibility.
fisher1 — Sounds like you know a lot more than I about Bishop Sullivan. Nevertheless, I stand completely by me assertion that he was almost universally beloved by the laity. That’s the polar opposite from the situation with Bishop Finn, who was widely loathed. That is indisputable.
As I said in a comment above, I stripped out the liberal/conservative labels because that’s too “pat.” It doesn’t allow for the large gray area in this situation. But I think everyone understands what I mean when I say Finn was ideologically rigid. It was all “my way or the highway” with him. The road to Gallatin-Hamilton tells that story.
Fitz, don’t apologize for using the “liberal” and “conservative” tags. Any bishop who goes on a radio talk show and tells Catholics, just days before the presidential election, that it is a sin to vote for Barack Obama, that is political. If a priest shows up at an anti-nuclear rally, he is making a political statement.
And I will echo your positive words about Fr. Farnan. In 2010, my son suffered a concussion at the St. Thomas More gym during an 8th grade basketball game between STM and St. Elizabeth’s (the school he went to and the parish we belong to). Fr. Farnan was kind enough to call our house a few days later to see how Nathan was doing.
As for Fr. Rocha, I don’t know his political leanings but I liked him a lot when he was at St. Elizabeth’s. Nice man. I got a little tired of all the tales of his football playing days, but I think he would make a good pastor and I hope that he gets a parish that will be a good fit.
The reinforcements have arrived!
Visitation has done we at St. Andrew’s an enormous favor with all their crying. We are able to keep our beloved Fr.Rogers for a little longer.
Make no mistake, we let our opinions also be known to Archbishop Naumann as well, but in a more gentle way. The Catholic church gets it’s teachings from Christ not from a board room. Until Our Lord comes down to change them Himself, this is the way it is.
Just wanted to add my thanks for your thorough coverage of this very positive step made by Archbishop Naumann. Although I don’t belong to any of the affected parishes, I’ve known Fr. Rush and Fr. Farnan for years and am happy to see them remain in their current assignment for at least another year. Two of the finest priests in our diocese deserved better and Archbishop Naumann listened! This Jim thanks another Jim for some great reporting on news I would not have known about otherwise!
Thanks very much, JimK…I knew that thousands of people were — and still are — interested in this very sticky situation. The Star might have covered something like this years ago, when it had a lot of reporters, but maybe not even then. It’s of keen interest primarily to those with current or past connections to one of the priests or parishes affected. I’m glad I was able to shed some light on it.