Bishop Finn Resigns: What Might It Mean for the W.d.o.e

By Jennifer Haselberger
Canonical Consultation
April 21, 2015

http://canonicalconsultation.com/blog.html

Almost immediately following this morning's announcement that Pope Francis had accepted the resignation of Bishop Robert Finn, the first Catholic bishop to be criminally charged as a result of his mishandling of sexual misconduct by a priest, I started to receive emails from people inquiring as to what I thought this means for us here in the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis (a.k.a the Worst Diocese On Earth). Unfortunately, my thought was, and remains, that it means little if anything for the simple reason that the situation of Bishop Finn, until this morning the Bishop of Kansas City- St Joseph, differs from that of Archbishop John Nienstedt in several important ways.

First, if the Vatican announcement is to be believed, Bishop Finn tendered his resignation following a meeting with Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, on April 14 (a development originally reported by the National Catholic Reporter). Archbishop Nienstedt, on the other hand, has steadfastly insisted that he will not resign. Since at present there is no real way to remove a bishop from office if he is unwilling to fall on his sword, Nienstedt's obstinate refusal to step aside remains a significant impediment to any resolution of the question of governance of the See of Saint Paul and Minneapolis.

Second, Bishop Finn's removal followed his guilty plea to criminal charges stemming from his failure to report child abuse, in this case child pornography in the possession of Father Shawn Ratigan. To date, Archbishop Nienstedt has not been charged with any crime. The Ramsey County Attorney's Office is continuing its investigation of the Archdiocese's handling of sexual misconduct by clergy, and it is possible that charges against Nienstedt or other Archdiocesan employees/clergy might result. Until then, however, Nienstedt is technically free from the most emotionally-charged (and possibly inaccurate) argument made against Bishop Finn- that diocesan safe environment policies would prohibit him from teaching Sunday school in his own diocese because of his guilty plea.

Third, Bishop Finn's resignation followed an Apostolic Visitation (again, a story originally reported by the National Catholic Reporter). To my knowledge, the only Visitation-related interviews that have taken place in this Archdiocese were regarding the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter. Although Nienstedt has been subject to an internally ordered investigation, and then apparently an investigation into the investigation, none of that has occurred under Vatican auspices or even, if I am not mistaken, with its consent. Many commentators have noted that Pope Francis likes to follow a process, in which case one would expect that an Apostolic Visitation would precede the removal of Archbishop Nienstedt and/or any of his auxiliaries.

Finally, the good people of Kansas-City-St Joseph have been relentless in applying pressure for Finn's removal. They even went so far as to hire a canon lawyer, Father James Connell, to submit a libellus to the Holy See seeking Bishop Finn's canonical prosecution. I am not suggesting that Catholics in this Archdiocese have not been vocal in their opposition to Archbishop Nienstedt, but I am not sure that opposition has been as strong and as sustained as what we saw in Missouri and are seeing now in Chile.

Still, as Grant Gallicho of Commonweal Magazine noted, if you are a bishop with a poor track record on sexual abuse, you are probably having a very bad day today. Gallicho, who broke the story on the investigation into Archbishop Nienstedt, referred to the Archbishop by name when commenting on those who are probably sweating a little heavier now that Finn is gone. According to Gallicho, if the report on the investigation contains what we all think/know it does, Nienstedt's 'days in the Twin Cities may be numbered'.

From Grant's mouth to God's ears...