Posted on 11/27/2006 3:45:02 PM PST by Joseph DeMaistre
On May 24, 2005, just one month after becoming a member of Opus Dei, Robert Finn was installed as the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-Saint Joseph. A diocese that includes 130,000 Catholics residing in 27 countries of northwest Missouri, KC-St. Joe has long been known as a bastion of Catholic progressiveness. It is as if he were sent there to turn back the clock.
Finn has turned out to be an advocate of unquestioning allegiance to Vatican hierarchy. Typical of many politically active Opus Dei members he falsely miscasts the value pluralist aspects so fundamental to American democracy society as "nihilism" and "moral relativism." More ominously, he sees his flock not as much as living as citizens in America democracy, but as part of "a kingdom." Unfortunately, the archbishop does not seem to accept that most American Catholics believe that in this life democracy rules and that the kingdom is for the next.
Within a year of his installation, Archbishop Finn unceremoniously fired the diocese's chancellor, a layman of 21 years of service in the diocese, along with his vice chancellor, whom the National Catholic Reporter described as "...a religious woman stationed in the diocese for nearly 40 years and the chief of pastoral planning for the diocese since 1990." Both were replaced with a single priest chancellor.(i)
Finn's personal political views have also come to predominate various diocesan decisions and pronouncements. Biological issues now take precedence over long-standing concerns such as distributive justice. As Dennis Coday reported in the National Catholic Reporter, A Respect Life Office was established to handle pro-life issues and battle stem-cell research. The effect of this decision was immediately felt in the recent battle over the Missouri's Amendment 2 stem cell ballot initiative which narrowly prevailed on November 7, 2006.
In his march backwards he has elevated the role of The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. This society of priests celebrates Mass in Latin exclusively in its traditional as promulgated before the Vatican II aggiornomento reforms. The Institute has as its stated aim the defense and propagation of Magisterium in all areas of human life, both private and social. Such an attitude is a clear rebuke to Vatican II's reform doctrine as defined in Dignitatis Humanae which declared that while the Church still viewed itself as the vessel of "the truth," it wisely concluded that individuals must be free to seek the truth without coercion.
He is not tolerant of dissent and personally censors articles that appear in diocesan publications. To that end, he has ordered the editor of the diocesan newspaper to immediately cease publishing columns by the progressive Notre Dame theologian Fr. Richard McBrien. He also announced that he would review all page one stories, opinion pieces, columns and editorials before publication. This behavior is consistent with Opus Dei's own internal practice of discouraging free thought through censorship. The lay group maintains a list of "forbidden" books, it does not want its members to read. It is a list that includes Enlightenment writers such as Locke, Rousseau and Voltaire.
Such policy is indicative of a distrust of reason. And nowhere is this played out in archbishop's universe than in the ongoing debate between the Jesuits and Opus Dei.
As I pointed out in the last installment of this series, the Jesuits generally believe that faith and reason can be reconciled. They are also more tolerant of dissent. Such attitudes are the antithesis of many on the Catholic Right. Dennis Coday noted in his NCR piece, "the diocesan-sponsored master's program, administered for eight years by the Aquinas Institute of Theology, a Dominican school affiliated with Jesuit-run St. Louis University, was transferred to the Institute for Pastoral Theology at Florida-based Ave Maria University. Ave Maria is being developed by former Domino's Pizza magnate, Thomas Monaghan who has funded a host of conservative Catholic efforts." (ii)
Right in the middle of the American Heartland reigns a leader of the Catholic Church who fears reasoned dissent. This fear of new ideas, and of difference, discussion and debate, speaks volumes of his disdain for liberal democracy as it has been practiced here for over two hundred and thirty years.
As a May 12, 2006 NCR editorial duly noted
"Such things cannot be exercised by fiat; people can't be made to become a faithful community by controlling them. The qualities of true leadership and authority accrue to those who have a deep empathy for the people they serve; who understand in profoundly human ways their hopes and aspirations as a people of God; who place compassion above the need to dominate; and who understand that relationships, not rules or rubrics or even revered devotions, are the essential thread of the fabric of a community living out the Gospel."
As with so much of its reporting on this disruptive prince of the Church, NCR has hit the nail squarely on the head.
But whether it is fighting embryonic stem cell research in a pluralistic society or taking on dissenting Catholics or Jesuits who can reconcile faith and reason Archbishop Finn's real enemy is modernity. And for Finn and those of similar thought modernity is synonymous with Liberalism--the very concept they disproportionately blame for alienation, excess commercialism and apostasy. It is an argument that has been made by royalist reactionaries since Joseph DeMaistre. In many ways it is a scream of protest against a changing world.
But the archbishop's scream is misplaced. It is only directed at those who understand that change inevitable, but wish to make it more humane. Unfortunately, the Archbishop Robert Finns of the word choose to ignore the truer agents of societal decay and apostasy--an increasingly orthodox faith that becomes more elitist, harsh and out of touch. And why? Simply because that leadership would rather consult with the likes of wealthy men such as Tom Monaghan and William Simon Jr. instead of people who might be their employees.
It is elitism at its worst. Beyond that, it is religious philosophy that seems quite out of step with its Founder's intentions. After all, didn't He make those on the margins the focus of His ministry?
Notes: (i) May 12, 2006, "Extreme makeover: the diocese" (ii) Ibid.
As do I. I think a freeper once posted that if in a position where someone was forced to use it, to think of it as "Christian Era" and "Before Christian Era." :)
he falsely miscasts the value pluralist aspects so fundamental to American democracy society as "nihilism" and "moral relativism." More ominously, he sees his flock not as much as living as citizens in America democracy, but as part of "a kingdom."
The Kingdom of Heaven, maybe? Sorry, but when the Son of Man comes to Judgment sitting on the clouds of glory, you don't get to vote on it.
How can we advocate for distributive justice in a pluralistic society? We can't impose our values on people who hate the poor and take away their right to exploit the poor for financial gain in a pluralistic society? We can't support government welfare, in a pluralistic society, when there are others who seek the truth without coercion. Pluralistic society. Pluralistic society.
This is news??
If these people really believed in a pluralistic society, they would have enough room for traditionally minded people who believe in God, Country, family and an ascetic morality.
They aren't pluralists in practice. They are narrow-minded dogmatists who are guided above all by hedonism, narcissism, self-absorption
and self-destruction. Anyone who gets in their selfishness is the problem. The irony is, although they deny it, they believe everyone has to think the way they do.
But that's part of human nature. It's a matter of having enough humility to look at your own problems before pointing the finger at others. They are moral absolutists whether they want to admit it or not, just not the kind of absolutes that are in civilization's best interest.
The barbarians would be proud.
Dear Bishop Finn may be the one of the great saints of these days keeping Missouri from burning under the wrath of God. And I mean, burning.
After he cleans up things there, perhaps he should be moved to Los Angeles.
We already know about Finn.
I was referring to Cocozelli's (who?) miserable opinion of him.
I got to meet Bishop Finn when I was out in Missouri, campaigning against Amendment 2. I definitely got a good impression from him. May he receive a red hat someday!
Were you never an Altar Boy? I wouldn't say that it inflicts pain, exactly ... but it can get awfully hot in the Summertime, wearing a cassock and surplice over dress clothes (including a necktie).
Uh no. If he means Catholic liberalism, then he is definately wrong. The midwest Catholic church is however more independent from politics, unlike in many places in the northeast like Boston.
They can try to turn Conservative Catholics against each other, but so did the Communists and the French Revolution. They failed. Catholics have the papacy and the magisterium to act as their Northern star.
Evangelicals do not. Protestantism inevitably collapses when confronted by Revolution. The Catholic Church suffers blows, but has always proven resilient in the long run.
Secularism may have the upper hand today, but it may not 200 years from now. Progressive "Catholics" aren't Catholic, period.
When I first saw BCE and CE I read it without thinking as Before Christian Era and Christian Era. I thought it was just
the academic writer in Biblical Archaeology Review getting fancy with the terms. When I found out it was supposed to be Common Era it just seemed contrived and petty.
That is Eastern Rite, yes? I am amazed. When out of area (I am Roman Rite) for Sunday I have always looked for an Eastern Rite Mass because I expect that I will find no dancing girls and no innovative priests either, just a proper predictable orthodox Mass. Going into strange Roman rite churches when in another city, I have found them, indeed, strange.
I would disagree with that. Many examples to the contrary. But the problem in the US for both cultural Catholics, and cultural Protestants is that most in the the US have no real sense of history. Each generation seeks to reinvent themselves (which is normal in a way), but for the last hundred years or so in the USA, the older generation has not transmitted their values. So we get where we are today.
I am referring to those Catholics who are committed to their faith.
In which case you are probably correct. But a committed non Catholic Christian can also weather the gales of revolution.
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.