Detroit, Mich., Jan 18, 2019 / 05:47 pm (CNA).- Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit announced this week the resignation of Sr. Mary Finn, 84, a long-time faculty member and assistant professor of theology, after allegations surfaced that she had sexual contact with young adult novices under her charge in the 1970s.
“In recent days, information came to my attention regarding inappropriate conduct over fifty years ago by Sr. Mary Finn,” Msgr. Todd J. Lajiness, the rector and president of Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, said in a statement published Wednesday.
“After a series of conversations with her, her superior, Archbishop Vigneron and members of the Archbishop’s team, I have accepted her resignation from the faculty of Sacred Heart Major Seminary, effective today.”
In a story reported by Deadline Detroit, Theresa Camden, a former novice with the Home Visitors of Mary, recalled “confusing” experiences with Finn, then the novice director for the order, such as being made to lie very close to her on exclusive retreats.
Camden told Deadline Detroit that in hindsight, she knew something felt wrong. After Camden and another novice, who has remained anonymous, were suddenly kicked out of the order in 1972, they sought therapy for their experiences with Finn. The anonymous novice confirmed to Camden that she had had a sexual relationship with Finn.
Michael Betzold with Deadline Detroit reported that Finn’s resignation was announced by the seminary as his story on the allegations was being prepared.
In her resignation letter, posted to the seminary’s website, Finn admits to having “misused my position of authority as a director of novices in the Home Visitors of Mary (HVM) Order, engaging in inappropriate conduct with two adult novices. I regret that behavior, have repented of my actions, and sincerely apologize for the harm I have caused.”
The Home Visitors of Mary hung up the phone when CNA attempted to contact the order about Finn. Subsequent attempts to contact the order went unanswered.
Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit, chairman of the board of trustees at Sacred Heart, was quoted in the seminary statement supporting Finn’s resignation, citing “additional information and what we have come to learn about how best to respond to these situations.”
He said that “While serving as rector of Sacred Heart in the late 1990s, I was given partial details about Sr. Mary’s inappropriate conduct that had occurred in the early 1970s. At the time, I thought the matter had been resolved. I regret this was not the case.”
In a Jan. 18 statement, Archbishop Vigneron went on to say: “It is only in recent days that I have come to know new and additional details and context regarding Sr. Mary’s misconduct. Based on this information, the current rector, Msgr. Lajiness, accepted Sister Finn’s resignation and I endorse this action.”
In 1969, three years before Camden and the other novice were expelled from Finn’s order, Finn began working at Sacred Heart Seminary, where she has served in various positions ever since.
Most recently, Finn was an assistant professor of theology and served on the Priestly Formation Team for the College of Liberal Arts, among other roles, according to a cached website of her seminary page, which had been removed from the school’s website by Friday, Jan. 18.
Edward Mischel, director of community psychiatry at Wayne State University in Detroit, was in the seminary at Sacred Heart about 10 years after Finn started there, in the late 1970s.
Mischel, who completed four years of college at the seminary before discerning that he was not called to the priesthood, told CNA that he chose Finn for his spiritual director and remembers her fondly. They still maintain contact to this day.
“She’s been this quiet, spiritual, loving, easy-going person,” Mischel told CNA. “The guys in the seminary, they adore her.”
News of the allegations of sexual misconduct in the early 1970s was “disheartening,” Mischel said, but he rejected any insinuations that Finn “was dominant or in this old boy’s club, that’s like the antithesis of her. I’ve never seen that in the 30, 40 years I’ve known her, nothing like that at all.”
Mischel said he knows Finn to be a staunch advocate for the people of Detroit, and a very kind and forgiving person.
When asked if he had any concerns that she was placed in charge of young seminarians, after having been accused of sexual misconduct with young women, Mischel said he was not concerned, because he had seen “nothing like that at all” by Finn against the seminarians.
But not all former seminarians of Sacred Heart remember Finn as fondly, and the news of her resignation and the allegations against her as a novice master have also raised serious questions and concerns about her conduct at the seminary.
Two former seminarians at Sacred Heart seminary have told CNA that Finn had a reputation for being overly “handsy” with seminarians – extended hugs, smooches, squeezes and generally unwanted contact were to be expected from Finn.
“In legal terms, it was unwelcomed touching. But if a seminarian reported it, they became a problem,” one former seminarian, who asked for anonymity, told CNA.
Another former seminarian, who also asked for anonymity, told CNA that Finn had become such a “fixture” of the seminary and was so well-liked and considered so holy that she became “untouchable” – any complaints against her were promptly dismissed.
This same seminarian told CNA that Finn was always “touching people”, and while he doesn’t know of any explicitly sexual touching, he said her behavior was “grossly inappropriate.” He recalled on instance where Finn almost pushed a seminarian over a balcony, only to pull him back at the last second, as a joke. When the seminarian turned to throw a punch, assuming it had been one of the guys, he instead saw Sr. Mary.
“She had no sense of boundaries,” the former seminarian said. Her meetings would often run late, and seminarians were expected to listen to her for hours, in what felt like “indoctrination lectures,” he said.
In another example of boundary violation, both former seminarians told CNA separately that Finn was known for wandering the residence wing of the seminary late at night unannounced, and would often walk past seminarians who were in their towels or boxers, coming to and from the communal showers.
One time, Finn wandered in on a priest in the shower, but that issue was “promptly addressed,” one of the former seminarians said.
At some point after the late 1970s, Finn had been moved from her community to live at the seminary. While she would wander the wing belonging to the seminarians, her room was in the faculty wing.
Mischel told CNA that Finn was still living with her community during his time at Sacred Heart. He said he suspects she may have been moved to the seminary due to health problems – she eventually developed Parkinson’s disease, which may have made it difficult for her to drive.
Mischel said he had never had any experience of Finn intentionally walking past half-dressed seminarians, and said he wondered whether it could have been a sign that Finn was entering stages of dementia.
One of the former seminarians who spoke to CNA also said Finn seemed to be “detached from reality” at times, and had difficulty remembering dates. Both of the anonymous former seminarians included in this article were at Sacred Heart in the early and mid-2000s.
When asked why Finn had been moved from her community to live at the seminary, Mary Henige, Strategic Communications Director for Sacred Heart Major Seminary, told CNA that “We do not know when and why Sr. Mary Finn moved to the seminary.”
Both former seminarians also told CNA that Finn’s theology was “unsound.” Part of her theology classes, they said, included “feelings lists” where seminarians were asked to recall an experience from their lives and describe their feelings. The lists, provided by Finn, included “feeling words” such as “sexy”, “hot,” or “horny”, they recalled.
One of the former seminarians told CNA that multiple men had attempted to register complaints against Finn’s conduct, but they were ignored because of the reputation she enjoyed. Many of the faculty at Sacred Heart had been formed by Finn during their time in seminary, and believed her to be saintly. He said at one point, he had heard a faculty member refer to Finn as the “Holy Spirit Incarnate.”
He said on the one hand, she did seem to have a genuine love and concern for people. She saw Christ in people in a way that was “beautiful,” he said.
But she acted like she “was everyone’s mom, but she wasn’t and she’s not,” he said. “There were clear boundary issues. She was very emotionally manipulative of people, very passive aggressive.”
“She had a cult-following, so this is devastating to a lot of people,” he added.
When CNA asked the archdiocese about these claims about Finn’s conduct at Sacred Heart seminary, the archdiocese referred all questions to Sacred Heart.
When asked whether the faculty at Sacred Heart were aware of Finn’s alleged reputation for unwanted touching, inappropriate contact or for allegedly wandering by seminarians in towels, Henige told CNA that “We’re not going to respond to character allegations, nor would that be our role. Sr. Mary’s resignation letter outlines the reasons why she resigned.”
[…]
If the Catholic Church and its agencies want to help immigrants, that’s fine. Just do it with money that belongs to the Catholic Church. Tax dollars confiscated from taxpayers to do the work of the Church should end…NOW!
Nope. No amnesty for those who entered illegally. Reagan did that with the expectation that the border would be secured. Democrats flooded the country with illegals again. They all go back. All of them.
The Catholic Church applauded and abetted the entry into the United States of people who knowingly broke the law by how they arrived. The Catholic Church even profitted greatly in their act. Now our bishops want to say, “Well, since they’re already here, why not let them stay.” But arriving here as a lawbreaker is not the way to start life in a new country. Rather, I’d propose that anyone here illegally and who has committed no other crimes since arriving, should be asked to voluntarily leave the country. They can be fingerprinted on the way out or use that photo ID system that we citizens are subjected to when we leave or re-enter the USA. They will be repatriated to their country of origin where they can re-apply for residency on an expedited basis. Their entry, then, into the USA can be normalized and they can once again resume life in a country where laws mean something. Acting on emotions is never a way to apply the law.
How about: if you have been deported for illegally and grossly overstaying a Visa or illegally entering, then you do not get to enter legally. If you deport yourself, there’ll be no record of deportation, and you can go through the normal process. (Possibly I’m making incorrect assumptions about illegal immigration processes) Exceptions for those under 18. I don’t see a reason to deport children who’ve been here most of their lives.
If potential immigrants get bonus points for speaking English and knowing the American way of life, self-deported illegals should have a leg up on the rest of the applicants, assuming they tried to integrate while they were here.
Let’s remember some salient facts:
1. There are millions of illegal aliens in this country.
2. They are earning incomes off-the-books
3. They are not paying taxes
4. The rest of the hard-working American citizens are paying more than their fair share for services that taxes provide
5. In effect, this entire Illegal Immigration Industry (that the Catholic Church receives remuneration for) is STEALING FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS. Where’s the charity in that, you bishops?
It seems the Archbishop is saying , while we should secure our borders, at the same time we should normalize those who are here as undocumented IF they are living as productive law abiding people. They would then become contributing taxpayers. Judging the number of “Help Wanted” signs in every town, I would conclude that they are very much needed. If we expelled them who would pick our crops? I’m in no way suggesting that we take advantage of them and keep them permanently in a lower class, but rather that they are welcomed and allowed every opportunity to better themselves and advance their social standing. Over several centuries every wave of immigrants has started at the bottom and worked their way up. Orderly paths to citizenship should be provided. This is the American way. They wouldn’t be here in the first place if we had secure boarders. Since they are here we should allow them to legally integrate.
They entered illegally. They committed a crime. They should return.
The Vatican recently increased penalties on illegals going into Vatican City. What does the Archbishop think of that?
He should have stopped at paragraph seven.
“If President Trump is able to shut down the border successfully, making illegal entry into our country virtually impossible, does it not make more sense to create a pathway for the undocumented to be able to earn legal status?”
Honestly, no. This “pathway to citizenship” narrative is inappropriate and unacceptable. There is already a formal process for immigrants to become citizens. That process must be honored, and it must apply equally to everyone. No amnesty, no work visas, no exceptions.
I voted for J.D. Vance. I never voted for any bishop to weigh in on immigration policy. That is left for laypersons in the Church to deliberate about. Bishops should stay in their own lane.
Bishops are the Church’s official teachers on faith and morals, and government policy is partly applied morality. They have reason to weigh in. But they should be careful not to speak beyond their knowledge, as we all should.
The Church does have “an obligation to care for every person with respect and love, no matter their citizenship status.”
That includes the children of American citizens whose parents are both working, one of them working two jobs, just to be able to provide their children with the basic essentials, and still can’t do that without slowly drowning in credit card debt.
Such children don’t get to spend anywhere near enough time with their parents. They are basically being raised by the secular school system, which in many cases indoctrinates them with values contrary to the Christianity of their parents.
Why are such families in this dire situation? Because massive, out of control, unregulated immigration (open borders) has driven down wages that far.
The Church’s approach to immigration hasn’t been treating such families with “respect and love.” It has instead coldly abandoned them, leaving their vulnerable children in a terrible situation.
The difference between Archbishop Naumann’s pleas for reasonable accommodation marks the spiritual heart of a man of God, a man committed to his brother as well as faith in Christ – from the many who continue to show no compassion whatsoever in their commitment to civil law. Whereas Naumann, a staunch traditional Catholic, is not a legalist when there’s room for charity.
Idiot compassion is not genuine compassion. Render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar’s. We are a nation of laws. Illegal aliens do not deserve compassion; they are technically criminals, so the appropriate response is deportation.
At judgment do you believe Christ will consider the difference as just or unjust?
I seem to recall a bible passage where Jesus asked His disciples to pay their tax with a coin found in the mouth of a fish. I have no recollection of Him advising civil unrest, which his disciples had initially hoped for. And I recall Him saying “render to Caesar”. Jesus never advocated breaking the civil law ( something his followers believed the Messiah would apparently do.) . I dont recall him making an allowance for illegal aliens either, some of whom commit violent crimes like rape and murder. Breaking into another nation is a crime.
Too many churchmen mistake Christianity for socialism or communism. It is not. Nor is it a sin to be a successful person or nation. Which means no one has a right to TAKE what belongs from you without your consent. The US donates foreign aid in numbers much larger than the next few nations combined. WE dont owe anyone anything. I dont recall Christianity EVER teaching that one has an obligation to stand by and be the punching bag of those with less means.
STEALING what you want is a great deal different than asking for help.
Charity belongs to God.
Illegal immigrants do not deserve compassion??
I’m all for law & order. A secure border protects everyone’s safety but I have a great deal of compassion for people brought here as children through no fault of their own. Even Gov. Rick Perry said we can be law abiding & still have a heart. We’re Catholics. We’re not 100% on one political team or the other. We can consider humane exceptions.
Whew! Good to hear your voice mrscracker. For awhile I thought compassion, even limited to hard cases had died among the faithful.
Amen, well said. I would hope that there is room for courteous and fruitful dialogue between men who are both reasonable and devout, which certainly includes both the Archbishop and the Vice-President. There is room for discussion about nuance and prudential judgements between such men, sorely lacking in, say, the endless simplistic pronouncements of the talking heads of CNN and Fox.
I don’t think disagreement on what is a reasonable way to approach illegal immigrants is necessarily evidence of legalism or a lack of compassion.
Possibly people are aware that there are only so many immigration officials, and the backlog in legal immigration applicants is years-long, sometimes over a decade. Giving illegals amnesty is not without cost to potential legal immigrants.
Fr. Morello, as multiple outlets have now reported, the USCCB has been operating a large contract for immigration-related services valued at over 100 millions dollars, which seems to include transferring federal funds to individual dioceses. Evidence is that they have been filing expenses and being reimbursed on a monthly basus. That is not “charity,” that is a contractual relationship to provide services for the federal government. There are charitable motivations behind it, and no doubt the individuals providing the services truly want to help others. But they are being paid for services, and only a minuscule fraction of their funding comes from charitable donations.
Whatever the relationship between the USCCB and the federal government has been in the past, the organization is now a major federal contractor by any reasonable standard.
So until more bishops, priests and Church employees connected to these contracts & grants are willing to openly discuss the ramifications and possible consequences of their heavy reliance on federal funding to perform essential missions of the Church, the appeals to “charity” will ring hollow. They are talking like people in denial of the basic circumstances in which they’re operating, and expecting others, especially laypeple, to tacitly go along with their delusions. I’m sorry to find that I have yet to find one bishop or priest who is being candid about this. Therefore now, I can’t fully trust what any of them say on the subject of relief for migrants and immigrants. But I will keep looking for one.
The good Archbishop, along with many other bishops, asserts that the church
does not have the authority or responsibility to determine the legal status of
migrants. But there is a profound difference between legal and illegal immigration –
and that is the crux of the problem. Many Americans support legal
immigration, not illegal immigration. Ignoring this difference is naive and irresponsible.
The church should encourage all people to obey the law.The church itself has
rules and laws – canon Law. Lawless behavior does not promote the common good which the church is always preaching.
And the Vatican itself does not permit the uncontrolled influx of migrants
into its territory.
So it’s looking like the Catholic dioceses throughout the United States have gotten themselves into a bad position by tacitly accepting responsibility for taking care of the unprecedented floods of would-be immigrants during the past 3-4 years because of the Biden administration’s lax enforcement of border security and immigration laws. Catholic Charities organizations seem to have unquestionably accepted the additional funding offered by the previous administration, as well as the administration’s approach, and now they are stuck dealing with the aftermath. They must have counted on Joe or Kamala Harris winning the election and continuing to throw more money at the various “refugee” assistance and othe4 programs.
Worst of al, the bishops seem to have fully embraced the Biden-era blurring of distinctions between “refugees” (a limited group) and the much larger group of people seeking to emigrate for economic reasons (who do not qualify as refugees). Now they are stuck trying to care for whatever percentage of the 5-million-plus people they are contractually obligated to assist. And it is Annual Appeal season. No wonder we are seeing multiple bishops coming forth with statements that are basically variations on the same set of messages. They want to keep the Biden-era levels of funding going.
I have a couple of comments.
The USCCB and individual bishops often call for immigration reform for our broken system, without saying what reform they want. Archbishop Naumann at least states what he wants – to make legal the illegals, or at a minimum to give them work permits. He proposes a fine, but they are economic immigrants and have very little money. What has been broken about our immigration system is a failure to enforce our immigration laws.
The bishop states, “It is inconceivable that our previous administration either did not know or care about the location or the circumstances of approximately 300,000 children and youth who entered the United States during the past four years.”
I find it inconceivable that the bishops did not know about the 300,000 children since it had been in the news for a long time.
Alhough it is not in this article, the bishops often say that we should welcome the stranger. We do welcome the stranger about one million times a year with legal immigrants. If the bishops do not think that this is an adequate number, they should tell us why, and what the correct number should be in their opinion.
In general the bishops try to conceal that they want legalization of illegals, by not using that language in their 2025 voting guide, but rather saying that, “We must stand with newcomers, authorized and unauthorized.”
Vatican threatens illegal immigrants who may dare enter the Vatican grounds:
“Vatican Promises Stiff Penalties for Illegal Aliens Crossing its Border”
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/01/16/vatican-promises-stiff-penalties-for-illegal-aliens-crossing-its-border/
I did a quick search on top salaries at Catholic Relief Services. I’m removing the names because I haven’t verified the following:
President: $596,5512
Executive VP of Strategy, Technology & Communications: $356,3882
Executive VP of Overseas Operations: $352,028
Apparently, charity pays very well, especially when using other people’s money.
The average VP salary in the US for a charity is $157,532; in California it’s 203,000. For a CEO, the average is 865,000. However, the average charity is nowhere near as large as CRS is, and one can expect above-average salary for above-average work.
Charitable officials, like government officials, may well be in it more for the spending power than for their personal salary. Motivations are typically impossible to observe, and trying tends toward rash judgement, which is why we judge by the fruits, and by adherence to other Catholic moral teachings (like contraception).
“Sadly, our population is declining in the United States because of abortion, many adults choosing not to marry, and married couples having fewer children. Our birth rate is below replacement level. Without immigrants, our population decline would be even more severe.”
When was the last time the USCCB issued a statement regarding the need for Americans to marry, refrain from contraception, and have children?
There has been success in raising birth rates when Catholic and Orthodox bishops in a few other countries have promised to be godparent to those in their diocese who request it, or for the third child of those in their diocese who request it. This is something a single bishop could have a direct impact on.
When was the last time the USCCB issued a statement regarding the need for Americans to marry, refrain from contraception, and have children?’
************
Good point.
The problem is the more liberal bishops and priests are controlling the issue in the United States.