Posted on 10/01/2014 6:39:32 PM PDT by marshmallow
Frankly, I was among the most vigorous supporters of Bishop Robert Finn when he took over the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph in May of 2005. It did not take this Opus Dei bishop long to start making the kinds of changes which are so critical to both Catholic renewal and the New Evangelization. I did not hesitate to provide a long list of reasons to praise Bishop Finn after his first year in a piece called Everythings Up To Date in Kansas City. And when I rerview that commentary today, I am still struck by how promising Finns leadership looked.
Unfortunately, Bishop Finn was somewhat tangentially caught in the sex abuse scandal in 2011 when he failed to report to civil authorities a priest who had child pornography on his computer. Given the rather fuzzy circumstances of Finns failure, I did not regard it as extremely significant, except in the sense that a failure to be absolutely on top of these things in todays Church really does raise questions of competence. Finns failure in this regard inevitably called his leadership into question, even more when he granted at least one jurisdiction the right to regularly review the dioceses handling of sex abuse in return for dropping charges against him. To me, letting civil government into Church administration is the last thing a bishop should ever do.
Now the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph has been the subject of an Apostolic Visitation to determine Bishop Finns fitness for leadership. The news was broken (not surprisingly) by the National Catholic Reporter, a newspaper whose middle name is an oxymoron. But it is interesting that the primary question asked by Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawathe Apostolic Visitordid not involve Finns handling of sexual abuse. The primary question was this:....
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...
PFL And therein lies a tale.
Finn’s crime was not “rather fuzzy,” it was very serious. He violated his diocese’ own rules for protecting children.
The number one problem is not his handling of the Ratigan case. It is that he routinely makes poor decisions even against they explicit advice of people he has hired to help him make the right decisions! In other words, many (MANY!) of his decisions lack prudence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.