jump to navigation

Another orthodox bishop going down? October 2, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, General Catholic, manhood, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society.
trackback

I did not cover the removal of the Bishop of Ciudad del Este, Paraguay, because it seemed pretty plain he had made a disastrous decision in giving harbor to a known pedophile.  Even though that bishop has been a great friend of the TLM, has seen vocations skyrocket, and has in general done a commendable job of restoring his diocese, it did seem the Vatican had grounds for his removal.  There was some scandal there, in that the bishop was removed just days after the official visitation (making the visitation, once again, seem little more than a formality), but even many traditional bloggers recognized there were grounds for dismissal.

But now we move to another apparent target of removal, one much closer to home and dearer to my heart.  Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas-St. Joseph MO is being “visited” by a Canadian archbishop, and there are a lot of fears this visitation may also be a formality.  In Finn’s instance, the case for removal is much less clear cut.  Yes, he was naive and gave his trust to an unworthy priest, but the instances of abuse were much less severe, and this priest was not so notorious as the one in the Paraguayan case.  Either way, it appears Bishop Finn may be on his way out, to the glee of his fervent opponents at the National Heretic Reporter and among Kansas City’s many progressive priests and laity.

But, in his defense, a few points regarding Bishop Finn:

• He promotes Summorum Pontificum and regularly offers the Extraordinary Form of the Mass
• He published a pastoral letter about the dangers of pornography
• He has lifted new vocations to a 40-year high, packing his seminaries with 110 new seminarians
• He has publicly warned Catholics that they cannot be Freemasons
• He cleaned up the mess he inherited from his predecessor, “company man” Raymond Boland, by slashing funding for diocesan bureaucracies

• Revising the diocese’s adult catechesis program
• Firing a lay chancellor and replacing him with a priest
• Ordering the editor of the diocesan paper to stop publishing columns by dissident Richard McBrien
• He took an oratory slated for demolition and transformed it into a thriving Latin Mass parish
• He publicly prays rosary vigils in front of abortion clinics

I’ll add one of my own.  It is apparent from their regular communiques just how much Bishop Finn loves the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and how much Bishop Finn feels at home there among those nuns.   It’s possible Bishop Finn had a case of really failed judgment, but so far, it’s been one instance.

The point I’d like to make is this, however:  while there may have been grounds to remove Bishop Livieres Plano from Ciudad del Este, and there may be grounds for doing the same to Bishop Finn, there is an awful double-standard at work in both cases.  Both bishops are well known for their orthodoxy, which makes the treatment being meted out to them radically different from the treatment of progressive bishops with far more scandalous pasts.  How many massive coverups of sex abuse has Cardinal Mahoney been involved in? And yet, there is no apostolic visitation of LA – he will be permitted to happily retire and to continue to influence events in the Church long after that.  How about Tampa Bay’s Robert Lynch, and his notorious personal failings – personal, in the sense of scandalous public sin and open relationships with young men.  Or, for the matter, Cardinal McCarrick – yes, retired, but never harassed and allowed to have continued influence in the Church.  You know I could go on for a very long time.

Is there a new, unspoken standard emerging?  Is that standard that if you are an orthodox bishop, you had better not have a single scandal in your diocese, or you’ll be your, while your progressive colleagues are allowed to remain even under the most egregious of circumstances?

I’ll admit it, I like Bishop Finn, and while he certainly made some large mistakes, he also got railroaded in an absolute travesty of a criminal case that had Church politics all over it.  Somehow, Kansas City, MO is a hotbed for progressive katholycs (just over the border in Kansas there is a huge density of incredibly traditional Catholics) and they have been gunning for Finn’s head since the outset – just as progressives have been trying to oust +Nienstedt in Minneapolis.

I guess one question is, why do the progressives almost always succeed, while faithful Catholics just sit and suffer under one progressive bishop after another? Heck, it took a dossier of hundreds of pages of the most lewd, filthy, open sodomite conduct by Miami priests, and the direct intervention of a fairly orthodox pope, to get the disastrously perverse and heretical John Favalora removed.

I know faithful Catholics are loud on the intrawebs, but I don’t think that’s going to get it done.  We should insist on one standard for all bishops, but dang if I know how to communicate that.

Oh:

twenties

Comments

1. TG - October 2, 2014

I read the Paraguay bishop wrote a letter about this stating it was because of his orthodoxy that he is being removed. You’re right the progressive ones get away with it. It’s because the church is now controlled by the modernists. St. Pius X, pray for us.

2. Luis - October 2, 2014

The Paraguayan bishop, as well as the Vatican’s statements on him, specifically point out that his removal was because he was not getting along with the other bishops in Paraguay. He openly accused the Abp of Ascension, the capital, of being a sodomite. Someone needs to confront the Pope with a formal statement, and no one is doing it… HH is destroying the Church.

3. Lynne - October 2, 2014

Also, I believe Bishop Finn is Opus Dei?

Richard W Comerford - October 2, 2014

Re: Father Carlos Urrutigoity

A defense of the controversial priest appointed to several positions of responsibility within his Diocese by Bishop Livieres can be found here: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350884?eng=y. I cannot judge the truth of this matter. I know that Christ at His Second Coming will put all wrongs to right.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

4. Dismas - October 2, 2014

The common thread here is some friendliness to authentic Catholicism. The common thread is not ephebophilia. Were that the case, which of us would not gladly assist the Inquisitors in their search for bishops who harbor ephebophiles?

Tantumblogo - October 2, 2014

Thanks for making my point better and more succinctly!


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: