Not much time for a post (I think I got ahead anyways yesterday), but there are more comments on Finn's Kansas City Star article by Todd from KC at catholicsensibility and Rocco at whispersintheloggia . Todd thought the article was good and then took Finn to task (politely, as is his way) for, among other things, cutting the center that offered the suspect New Wine program and for not keeping Rush and his chancery buddies around to meddle. To Todd, I'd say if there's more administrative fumbling from Finn than from his predecessor, it's because his predecessor didn't do any administering to speak of. I've tried not to bag on Bishop Boland in this blog, but he came out of retirement and talked to the press, so he's fair game for the next few days.
Rocco thinks Finn is right on target. But Rocco strays when he suggests that Finn-haters and Mahoney-haters are in the same boat. As I observed in his comment box. One group is upset because a bishop isn't behaving like a Catholic and is doing things that put distance between his diocese and the universal Church; the other is upset because the bishop is reining them in and exercising his office in a traditional way. I'm sorry, I don't see how the comparison works!