I hope our Holy Father puts a real cowboy in charge of the Boston Archdiocese, and soon!

...then maybe he could promote Mahony to the head of the Vatican Tourist Office...?

John Hearn | 01.30.03 - 1:59 pm | #

I have to say, with all due respect, that I don't find George Weigel's article very helpful.

I hope it helps boost morale for Catholics elsewhere in this country, but for those of us in Boston, he's leaving out a lot. Particularly disappointing is the typical Blame the Media reproach.

Weigel's quite correct about Myth #2. Don't get me wrong. There is most certainly a cabal of "usual suspects" when it comes to left-wingers in the clergy here who don't like their own church's positions.

But I think he's wrong about Myth #1.

Purely and simply Cardinal Law resigned because by early Summer, indeed even before that, his credibility was utterly destroyed with his flock. Not his credibility with the Boston Globe. And not his credibility with the high rollers. His credibility with my parents and their generation and the rest of us ordinary churchgoers. Cardinal Law wasn't destroyed by the media. I'm sorry, guys, from our vantage point, you have to give this one to the Globe for doing their job. And they did the Church a favor in the long run. Cardinal Law had only himself to blame for not addressing the cover-up of perverts in the clergy. What appalled most Catholics—especially of the older generation—was the knowledge that while he was protecting predator priests, the Archdiocese was not only not listening to the victims or their families, it was pressuring them to keep silent and trying to bribe them. I'm sorry. We gain nothing by blaming the media for revealing such a hideous, corporate mode of operation, unworthy of a church that is given to the Gospel. (Try to imagine Christ not believing the woman caught in adultery.)

And let me say personally, as someone who has met him more than once, as someone who knows very well one of the Archdiocese's financial board of advisory members who worked with the Cardinal over many years, he was a smug, detached man. However right he was about some issues—and God Bless him for standing up for the Church's position on abortion, etc. But he clearly had a blind spot the size of a Black Hole in his heart. And he put the clergy, the club—not the Church—before anything else.

He was no shepherd. He knew it. And we all suddenly knew it.

That's why he resigned.

John Farrell | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 3:42 pm | #

Weigel posits that Rome was aware of the less than loyal nature of the 58 priest signatories of the letter asking for Law's resignation. That's an interesting claim, given that there has been much talk about how Rome could not be expected to know very much about what was really going on in US seminaries and dioceses, so Rome should not be held responsible for allowing the Scandal to occur (or, in another area, allowing the rapant abuses in the celebration of Mass which are prevalent in the US). The claims of Rome's knowledge of some things and simultaneous ignorance of others seem designed more to exculpate Rome than to provide an accurate account of how these sorry states of affairs came to pass.

Bill | 01.30.03 - 4:00 pm | #

Assuming you are right, it might be that Rome knew about the signatories because Law told Rome about them, and that Rome didn't know about the screwups because Law was less forthcoming about that.

Me, I have no idea what Rome does and doesn't know. I have some guesses, but they don't typically brief fat suburbanites in Seattle on these matters.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 4:46 pm | #

John:

The two myths Weigel debunks are Myth #1: Cardinal Law was forced from office by the Vatican in response to irresistible pressures from Boston clerical and lay activists.

and

Myth #2: Rome’s decision was heavily influenced by the public letter signed by fifty-eight Boston-area priests, asking Cardinal Law to resign.

I don't see where this is "Blame the Media" thinking, so I'm not sure what you mean.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 4:50 pm | #

Mark,

You're right, I was too much fixating on Weigel's swipe at "myth-making".

But Weigel is still wrong on Myth#1:

In brief, the chief factor in Cardinal Law’s resignation was...Cardinal Law. Whatever you hear to the contrary from Voice of the Faithful, the Boston Priests’ Forum, Newsweek, or the Boston Globe is myth-making, usually agenda-driven.

The problem with this is the oversimplification. Weigel makes it sound like, fact: Cardinal Law tendered his resignation in April and then when things got worse he tendered it again and it was accepted.

Um, and why did things get worse? It's what's left out that is the crux of this matter, what happened before, during, and leading up to the resignation that destroyed Cardinal Law's reputation and that of the Archdiocese. Weigel doesn't dwell on it.

Cardinal Law stonewalled for weeks, then months before April. He would not have even tendered his resignation then, which for many was already much later than he should have, had not more abuses come to light in the newspapers. His credibility dissolved as each assurance from him turned out to be utterly hollow. I believe it was Michael Kelly who said that Law's testimony in the depositions was something worthy of Bill Clinton. Most Catholics were humiliated by this and continue to be.

Sure, Cardinal Law was the chief factor in his own resignation...after he dragged the archdiocese to the verge of bankruptcy and disgraced his office. And after, yes, thousands of lay people who've never been activists in their lives expressed their displeasure.

Like... my 72 year old mother, who raised 8 kids and never missed a Mass in her life if she was healthy and has no high opinion of activists, was preparing along with my sisters to picket the Cardinal on the very Sunday before he mercifully, finally, brought this year-long horror show to an end.

Like...her parish priest who is not one of the Priest's Forum. Like...many other priests that he spoke of in homilies...I could go on.



John Farrell | 01.30.03 - 9:21 pm | #

John, your view from "ground zero" is very interesting.

I consider L.A. and Seattle both my homes. The bishop of L.A. is pretty tainted by the cover-up scandals, while the bishop here in Seattle isn't. But whenever I've been in discussions about this, in Seattle or L.A., Cardinal Law is seen as the standard. "Our bishop did this or that bad, but at least he's not Cardinal Law."

I feel this is media-driven: not because of anti-Catholic bias, but because the media need to oversimplify every story. So instead of "several dozen bishops of varying culpability," we get Evil Bishop Law.

Anyway, that's the view from the West Coast. In Boston in 2002 was the volume deafening? Out here in Seattle I read the Boston Globe online a lot (usually through links from cwnews.com)....


Lawrence King | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 10:01 pm | #

Just one more example: A few months ago whenever someone said the word "Boston" in any context, it seemed that everyone immediately thought Priests Abusing Boys.

Maybe y'all should hold another Tea Party, just as an image-building event.....
Lawrence King | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 10:03 pm | #

Thanks for the comments, all. (Lawrence, yeah it was worse than deafening here last year. I mean, almost every day--with a short break in the summer--it was on the front pages....) BTW, If I came across as shrill, I do apologize. The feeling here is still one of numbness. There are already reports in the paper about how many Catholic schools are going to have to be closed in order for the Archdiocese to settle its lawsuits. My guess is after that, Catholic hospitals may suffer as well. It's going to be years for Boston to recover.
John Farrell | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 8:56 am | #