Friday, September 7, 2012

What's next for Kansas City Bishop Finn?

Ultra-Conservative Catholics are trying to downplay the significance of yesterday's conviction of Bishop Finn in criminal court. See, for example, the Catholic League's Bill Donohue's claim that " The case did not involve child sexual abuse—no child was ever abused, or touched, in any way by Father Shawn Ratigan. Nor did this case involve child pornography" !! This despite the now agreed upon facts on record that the Bishop failed to notify authorities of pornographic photographs on Fr. Ratigan's computer, photographs that were only reported to authorities some months later against the Bishop's wishes according to court records. The cry that the hullabaloo is all the work of anti-Catholic enemies is repeated and seconded by folks like Fr. Zuhlsdorf

Meanwhile, back on this planet, legitimate news organizations like the AP and Catholics generally are discussing how to heal and restore credibildity to the hierarchy.For example, David Gibson in USA Today, under the headline "What's next for Bishop Robert Finn? reports

Finn, leader of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph and an outspoken conservative in the American hierarchy, was convicted of a single misdemeanor count for not telling police that one of his priests, the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, had taken hundreds of lewd images of children in Catholic schools and parishes.

But even as he became the first U.S. bishop ever convicted in criminal court for shielding an abusive priest, Finn's standing inside the church appears uncertain, and the subject of intense debate.

Should he stay or should he go? Finn has indicated that he wants to tough it out. "The Bishop looks forward to continuing to perform his duties, including carrying out the important obligations placed on him by the Court," Finn's spokesman, Jack Smith, said in a statement to Religion News Service on Friday.

Pope Benedict XVI is the only one with the authority to force a bishop from office, and the Vatican said nothing on Friday about Finn.

Meanwhile, the point man on the abuse crisis for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop R. Daniel Conlon of Joliet, Ill., was circumspect about Finn's conviction.

Conlon, who recently acknowledged that the hierarchy's credibility on abuse was "shredded" in part because of cases like Finn's, said that he did not know the details of the trial. He instead stressed that the bishops stood by their policy of reporting all allegations to police and complying with all local laws on reporting.

.......

But others directly called on Finn to step down.

"For the good of the diocese and the church, I think he should apologize and resign. Then a new bishop can begin the healing process," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a fellow at Georgetown University's Woodstock Theological Center.

"The judge found him guilty," said Reese, a Jesuit priest. "There is no way he can lead the diocese after that."

Nicholas Cafardi, a canon and civil lawyer at the Duquesne Law School in Pittsburgh, said that Finn could be dismissed under canon law. He also noted that in the past year Benedict removed a bishop suspected of financial improprieties and another who suggested that the church debate the issue of allowing women and married priests. In an email, Cafardi said that in Finn's case it shouldn't come to that.

"The best solution for the Church here … is not a canonical process or even Finn's forced removal," said Cafardi, a former head of the bishops' National Review Board that was established to ensure compliance with their own reforms. "It is that Finn put the good of his diocese above his personal ambitions and his need for power and resign immediately. After this, how can he face his people or his priests?"

In the long run, Finn's viability as a bishop may depend on how local Catholics react.

The case has left many of the faithful in the diocese discouraged and furious, and it is not clear Finn can reverse that negativity.

......

Until this week Finn had vigorously rejected the charges that he had done anything wrong, and had hired a high-priced defense team to make his case. The diocese revealed this week that Finn's legal bills have cost the diocese and its insurers nearly $1.4 million over the past year, and that parishes will have to kick in more money to cover the outlays. Finn and the diocese still face numerous civil suits resulting from the case.

"How can the diocese move forward after all this?" the Rev. Gerald Waris, a retired priest who was pastor of the church where Ratigan last served, told the Kansas City-based National Catholic Reporter. "Most of us who have worked in parishes and continue to work here, we'll have to find a way to rise above it all."

.........

"Rome is not immune to public pressure," said Cafardi. "It's now up to the faithful and the clergy of the diocese to come forward."

Read the entire USA Today article.

1 comment:

  1. To get an accurate picture of the events in Kansas City, beyond all the possible truth bending and posturing by any partisan reporters, take a look at the facts stipulated to by Bishop Robert Finn. Turns out Bishop Finn's moral and legal decisions were far worse than publicly apparent up to now. Presumably his choice to go with a bench trial was motivated by being able to prevent still further embarrassing public revelations.

    ReplyDelete