“How do you explain Mahoney,”
He’s no longer leading a diocese and never led one under this pope.
“Cupich, Gomez, Dolan, Wuerl, O’Malley, Lynch, Marx, Maradiaga, etc and their abilities to lead a diocese?”
I don’t explain it. I don’t have to.
“Bishop Finn stands head and shoulders over all the above.”
And yet he is the one who was charged with a crime - and his actions in that case have everything to do with how poorly he administered his diocese. He’s a basically good man, an orthodox bishop, but not a good leader, not a good administrator, and he completely ignored the advice of his own hand picked officials. That’s why his own hand picked - and in-house trained - chancellor threw Finn under the bus. Did you know that happened?
Why did Finn ignore the advice given to him by the fund raisers HE HIRED about delaying the start of a capital campaign? Do you know what happens if they end up 10, 15 or close to 20 million short of their goal? I do. Disaster!
Finn’s diocese lost 20,000 Catholics during his tenure. They didn’t die. They didn’t move to another diocese. They just disappeared. They essentially ceased being practicing Catholics.
It’s not that he was a bad man. It’s not that he was an unorthodox bishop. It’s that he simply had no idea of what to do. He hired some people who were incompetent (orthodox perhaps, but incompetent). He retained others who should have been fired and they were retained merely because they were his friends. If someone gets a lawsuit or two filed against you, he should be fired. Finn retained him. If he essentially steals from you (meaning stealing from the diocese), or uses the diocese for his own financial gain, he should be fired. Finn retained him. Finn did exactly the wrong thing in personnel matters repeatedly.
I had a discussion with one of his highest ranking officials four years ago, and I told him that a) the capital campaign was going to be in serious trouble, b) the diocese still had no plan for its parishioners after 5 years of Finn being in charge, and c) Finn might be a great liability down the road (this was in 2011 just after the Ratigan case broke; I didn’t live in the diocese and had nothing to lose). That official completely denied there were any problems. He was downright pollyannish about it. It was as if he was out of touch with reality. I guarantee you that official will be out of a job by the end of 2015 or whenever a new bishop is appointed.
Several people in that chancery are most likely now worried they will lose their jobs because their incompetence will be obvious to the next bishop. Archbishop Naumann, the apostolic administrator, has to know what’s what in the diocese because he has employees and associates who have “fled” the chancery of Kansas City, Missouri because of the chaos there under Finn. Have you kept up with the tumultuous changes in that diocese lately? Have you read about them online? Just since the Ratigan case broke, that diocese has lost two chancellors, two schools office administrators, two vicar generals, two directors from the catechetical institute, two directors of young adult ministry, the director of youth ministry, the director of marriage and family, the HR director, the head and associate head of stewardship, and a number of other people. Some of these people needed to go I am sure, but others were undoubtedly competent and left in disgust over Finn’s handling of things.
As soon as I heard about the Vatican investigation, I knew Finn was through. I remember reading in The Wanderer about Finn in 2006. I assumed - just as the author of the article suggested - that the attacks on Finn’s intelligence (his savvy, perhaps?) by liberals was just the standard sort of attack from liberals. After all don’t liberals attack the intelligence of conservatives all the time? But over the years I came to realize the liberals were right about Finn in at least one way: he just wasn’t that swift. I’m not saying he isn’t intelligent in an academic sense. I can’t even really say he has no street smarts at all. He just seems to make EXACTLY THE WRONG decision over and over again.
The one thing no one can take away from Bishop Robert Finn is that he dramatically increased the ranks of seminarians and new priests in his diocese. http://www.diocese-kcsj.org/_docs/2014_2015_Seminarian_Poster.pdf For that his parishioners should always be grateful.
Can you make your story more consistent?
First you deride Bishop Finn with the statement:
>>Finn’s diocese lost 20,000 Catholics during his tenure. They didn’t die. They didn’t move to another diocese. They just disappeared. They essentially ceased being practicing Catholics.<<
Yet later you state:
>> The one thing no one can take away from Bishop Robert Finn is that he dramatically increased the ranks of seminarians and new priests in his diocese.<<
I’d much rather have good, orthodox priests than weak “catholics” who “just disappear”. Once again, your “logic”, or lack thereof, eludes me.
I consider anybody you accuse of being wrong, as orthodox.
Jesus Christ was also charged with a crime. What's your point?