UNITED STATES
Hamilton and Griffin on Rights
Bishop Robert Finn of the diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph MO finally has been fired by Pope Francis. The event culminates years of heroic effort by survivors, law enforcement, parishioners, and whistleblowers that saw:Screen Shot 2015-04-22 at 8.25.58 AM
• The conviction of Finn for waiting five months to report hundreds of child porn photos on his priest’s computer (Finn was sentenced to two years’ probation);
• A criminal conviction of the priest, Shawn Ratigan, for producing images of child sexual abuse;
• Successful lawsuits by dozens of Kansas City victims that forced the diocese to implement child safety measures and pay millions;
• A court ruling fining the diocese $1.1 million for multiple breaches of a 2008 child protection contract;
• A petition to the Vatican by 263,000 people;
• A petition to Pope Francis from a canon lawyer and a group of KC Catholics;
• Years of protests, editorials, social media campaigns, and billboards.
Given the enormous costs paid by survivors and others to achieve this week’s outcome, it’s small wonder that reaction seems muted. Relief is mingled with sadness and puzzlement that it took Pope Francis so long to do the obviously right thing. If the church had been following its own policies, Bishop Finn shouldn’t have been allowed to teach CCD, let alone run a diocese.
Adding to the subdued response is the Pope’s notable silence. His eloquence at pivotal moments on other issues of injustice has been transformative. But of this long delayed firing of a bishop who knowingly endangered children and deepened the trauma of survivors by hounding them ruthlessly in court, Francis has no comment. No denunciation of bishops who endanger children, no promise that other guilty bishops will be removed, no apology for the suffering he caused by stalling.
In fact, we can’t even be sure of why the Pope fired Bishop Finn. Because he failed to protect children? Or because he was causing scandal?
Is the Pope trying to squash a persistent PR problem? Or he is launching a new era of bishop accountability?
The only information this week came from the Vatican, in a one-sentence bulletin in Italian. It said that Finn’s resignation had been accepted in accordance with canon 401, paragraph 2. That church law states: “A diocesan bishop who has become less able to fulfill his office because of ill health or some other grave cause is earnestly requested to present his resignation from office.”
This is the same notice the Vatican has issued in the firing by previous popes of other complicit, scandal-causing bishops – such as Irish bishop Brendan Comiskey, removed by Pope John Paul II in 2002, and Irish bishop Seamus Hegarty, removed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2011.
[Click here to see BishopAccountability.org’s list of abuse-enabling bishops who have resigned.]
Indeed, the same cryptic announcement accompanied the December 2002 resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law. His departure ended a calamitous year in the Boston archdiocese. But that resignation quickly was revealed to be bogus accountability by the Vatican — it was a rescue, not a rebuke.
So while we can hope that Finn’s removal signals a shift in papal policy on complicit bishops, there’s reason to be skeptical – to suspect that this is the same damage control tactic used by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
How can Pope Francis prove he is different? He can start by publicly confirming that Finn was removed because he harbored a sexual abuser. Such a modest admission by a pope would be unprecedented, and it would send a bracing message to bishops and religious superiors worldwide that a new era has begun.
More importantly, the Pope must keep cleaning house, and without the same agonizing delay. Sadly, it’s not hard to identify other unfit bishops. Archbishop Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis should be at the top of the list. There’s documentary evidence that children in recent years have been sexually assaulted because of his wanton irresponsibility.
And just as quickly, Francis must reverse his strange and disastrous appointment of Chilean bishop Juan de la Cruz Barros Madrid. Several victims have testified that Barros witnessed their sexual abuse by disgraced priest Fernando Karadima. Francis must ignore the pressure to retain Barros that he likely is receiving from his friend Cardinal Francisco Errázuriz, another enabler of Karadima. The pope instead should honor the pleas of the victims, his own Commission members, and of the priests and parishioners of the Osorno diocese.
In the meantime, we can celebrate the courage of the survivors in Kansas City, St. Paul, Chile and elsewhere who have exposed corruption in the Church. Thanks to them, accountability is happening, and it includes the Pope himself. Francis has pledged to discipline bishops who fail to protect children — and survivors and Catholics worldwide are determined to hold him to his promise.
Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.
