Cardinal Law speaks publicly

Cardinal Law speaks publicly

Cardinal Law spoke publicly for the first time on leaving Boston in an interview with the archdiocesan newspaper. He said he prays for Archbishop O’Malley and the archdiocese every day, that he’s adjusting to a much different pace of life from what he had before, and that he felt like he begun to address the Scandal effectively, but that lack of confidence in his leadership was gone and it was time to go.

I might dispute whether he really had begun to address the Scandal effectively, but in any case he is gone and it does no good to rehash that. I wish him well.

There seems to be a sentiment among the Globe‘s writers that Cardinal Law should never get another assignment. Certainly, I don’t think he will ever be sent to another diocese. It would have to be an archdiocese that customarily has a cardinal at its head and that’s very unlikely to happen. But he could be given charge of a Vatican congregation. More likely, though, he continue to serve in the way is now, as a member of various congregations, traveling around the world for various tasks, like attending the welcoming Mass in Vietnam this week for Cardinal Man following his elevation as cardinal in October.

Written by
Domenico Bettinelli
  • He was, and remains, a good man…and a good priest. I, too, wish him well.

    Colleen, you’re asking the question that nobody seems to want to touch. I hope you keep asking it. You’re not alone.

  • As much as I agree that there were priests who were enablers by their silence, we can’t completely excuse the cardinal and others. There were people who did warn the cardinal—priests and laypeople—about guys like Shanley and Geoghan. And no one but the cardinal wrote the smarmy goodbye letters full of appreciation for “good ministry.”

    Kelly, I too believe he is a good man and a good priest, but he was a mediocre bishop, a man who made some awful mistakes. But as I said, it’s time to move on and wish him well on his journey.

  • I see no place where I “excused” the Cardinal in my post. Not, by the way, that I would presume that excusing or not excusing was within my realm.

    I was responding to your post and to Colleen’s.

    He’s still a bishop…no need to speak of him in the past tense. Perhaps you meant “Archbishop of Boston.”

    Mediocre? Maybe. Although personally, I’m pretty grateful for—oh, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example.

    But as you say, let’s move on. Obviously, he has.

  • Kelly,

    I wasn’t responding to your comments, as much I was Colleen’s. I just wanted to clarify that the fault didn’t lay primarily with his underlings, something which the casual reader might have surmised from what was written.

    I’ll give him credit for asking for the Catechism to be written, although my primary thanks for that go to Cardinal Schonborn who actually oversaw the writing of it.

    I hate to say it, but I think some of those priests knew very well what was going on, but deemed it in their best interests to overlook certain things. It’s not a missing part of the Scandal so much as its something which needs a lot more attention paid to it at some point.

  • Sorry Dom, my mistake. I thought the way you wrote “Kelly” in your post, that you were responding to something I wrote. [sheesh <g>]

    Colleen? You’re still asking the right questions. I think it needs a lot more attention paid to it…not at “some point” but actually now.

    We can concentrate on “smarmy letters” until we’re blue in the face but here’s the thing. The president of the Boston Priests Forum was Father Paul Shanley’s immediate—immediate!—supervisor during the bad old days and nobody seems to care, or wonder how come it may have been his “best interest” to “overlook certain things.”

    Hello? We’re talking about Father Bullock here. Any bells ringing?

    But of course…we should move on.