# Cardinal Law in the Vatican **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 8, 2005, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314 "2005-04-08T00:48:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DaddyTimesTwo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f07891/32.png) [@DaddyTimesTwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaddyTimesTwo)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/1 "2005-04-08T00:48:40Z")
[This](http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTB2MXQ5MTU3BF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtaWU-/s/235771) Yahoo news link has me about angry. Nothing shows the laity that you understand their anger and hurt by rewarding the man in charge with a position of honor during a worldwide event. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/2 "2005-04-08T00:56:04Z")
[This article](http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=GCHev7kVswGzej%2FlgEe1FB%3D%3D) seems appropriate. An excerpt: > [@](#): > > Under his papacy, the Church was also guilty of allowing the rape and molestation of vast numbers of children and teenagers, and of systematically covering the crimes up. It is hard to understand how the leader of any lay organization would have stayed in office after allowing such criminality. But how the leader of the Catholic Church survived without even an attempt at papal accountability is still astonishing. A Pope who devoted enormous energy to explicating why the only moral expression of human sexuality is marital heterosexual intercourse presided over the rape of thousands of children by his own priests. What was his response? He protected the chief enabler of the abuse in the United States, Cardinal Bernard Law, and used the occasion of his own Church’s failing to blame homosexuals in general. Attempting to grapple with the real question would have meant a debate about priestly celibacy, homosexuality, pedophilia, and the Church’s disproportionately gay priesthood. But this Pope was far more interested in closing debates than in opening them. So I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised… ---
**Author:** ![Vlad\_Igor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Vlad\_Igor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vlad_Igor)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/3 "2005-04-08T03:13:43Z")
In his defence, I would say that the Pope could not be directly responsible for the ongoing molestation that happened during his tenure, unless it could be shown he knew about it before action was forced by the laity. The RCC is too big to hold him accountable for every single priest. However, I find it egregious that Cardinal Law is put into such a prominent position during the funerial rites. His willfull coverup put a lot of people in danger and contradicted what the RCC said it stood for. In one sense, I pity the RCC because it keeps getting dragged under the surface by the weight of tradition that prevents it from adequately addressing problems and critical issues. In another sense, I get angry because it keeps straying farther and farther from what it claims to represent on earth. Vlad/Igor ---
**Author:** ![Cynical\_Optimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Cynical\_Optimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cynical_Optimist)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/4 "2005-04-08T13:24:35Z")
In all fairness, the abuse started before JP2 became pope, at least in the Boston area. Personally, I’m hoping that when they announce a new pope that it is, in fact, Bernie “Don’t Drop the Rosary” Law who appears to the crowd in white robes. Oh boy, imagine the fun that will occur in the wake of that revelation. 😛 I would have loved to be a (latin-speaking) fly on the wall when Bernie met the pope after the pedo-a-go-go story broke. I think JP2 must have gone absolutely bullshit over that. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/5 "2005-04-08T13:26:54Z")
> [@Cynical Optimist](#): > > I would have loved to be a (latin-speaking) fly on the wall when Bernie met the pope after the pedo-a-go-go story broke. I think JP2 must have gone absolutely bullshit over that. “Hey Law, ya dumbshit, try not to get caught next time!. OK, let me slap your wrist, now get out of here, ya knucklehead.” ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/6 "2005-04-08T13:32:46Z")
> [@Cynical Optimist](#): > > I would have loved to be a (latin-speaking) fly on the wall when Bernie met the pope after the pedo-a-go-go story broke. I think JP2 must have gone absolutely bullshit over that. He was so angry and shocked that he appointed Law as Archbishop of St. Mary Major Basilica in Rome. That’ll teach him. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/7 "2005-04-08T13:46:22Z")
When I saw [a similar article in the WaPo this morning](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35548-2005Apr7.html), I was absolutely incensed. I had had no idea the late Pope had given Law the honor of such an appointment - archpriest of the basilica of St. Mary Major - **after** his role in enabling priestly serial child molesters became widely known. Apparently the post, while ceremonial, is a big deal. From the OP’s link: > [@](#): > > Many Boston Catholics already were upset about the pope’s decision to appoint him to the basilica. The post is ceremonial but highly visible; the church is one of four basilicas under direct Vatican jurisdiction. And apparently it’s the stature of this appointment that puts Law in the honored position of leading one of only nine daily masses for the late Pope during the mourning period: > [@](#): > > Chester Gillis, an expert in Catholicism at Georgetown University, said celebrating a Mass during the mourning period is not only an honor, but a position of influence. > > \ > > Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick said he did not know why Law was chosen, but said it was likely because the basilica is one of the great churches of Rome. > > “It would be a natural selection,” McCarrick said. “The choice was certainly not made for any reason except to honor St. Mary Major.” I’d been upset enough with the Catholic Church’s exceedingly timid response to the findings that large numbers of Catholic children in America had been sexually abused by Catholic priests. But heaping great honors on those who protected the abusers, and enabled them to keep on doing…that’s the last straw. Pope John Paul II, may you endure many eons in purgatory for this. And to every Catholic cardinal, archbishop, and anyone else in a position of authority who knew what Law had done, yet didn’t speak out against the Pope’s honoring of Law - the same to all of you. And that probably takes in most of the Church heirarchy. I have lost the last shred of respect I once had for Roman Catholicism. May that institution quickly fall apart and decay. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/8 "2005-04-08T13:53:21Z")
Now, I see nothing I disagree with in Pitting Law, but should anyone happen to defend to Church in anyway in this thread :dubious: , I want to have to get seated early, thus, this post. I know I can simply subscribe, but I want to say I was there from the beginning, should this continue. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/9 "2005-04-08T13:55:54Z")
There wasn’t much to do with Law. Rather than farm him out to the boonies and put him into early retirement, they elected to cut his power base off and keep him stuffed in a sack close to home. As in, he can’t do any damage stuffed into an office in Rome. I suspect he got into the post-papal ceremonies by being nearby more than anything else. In any event, from our perspective he’s an indiot and did something very bad, but has since repented and has paid every penalty the church can enforce. If he was repentant about his error, however grave, it has been forgiven. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/10 "2005-04-08T14:23:04Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > Now, I see nothing I disagree with in Pitting Law, but should anyone happen to defend to Church in anyway in this thread :dubious: , I want to have to get seated early, thus, this post. I know I can simply subscribe, but I want to say I was there from the beginning, should this continue. Psst… “lawn chair” posts aren’t allowed, even in the Pit. You’re meant to either contribute something of substance - and I’m not sure your anti-Church snark counts - or keep mum. This information presented out of altruism as, despite having a higher post count than mine, you’ve not been around all that long. ---
**Author:** ![DaddyTimesTwo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f07891/32.png) [@DaddyTimesTwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaddyTimesTwo)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/11 "2005-04-08T14:42:31Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > There wasn’t much to do with Law. Rather than farm him out to the boonies and put him into early retirement, they elected to cut his power base off and keep him stuffed in a sack close to home. As in, he can’t do any damage stuffed into an office in Rome. I suspect he got into the post-papal ceremonies by being nearby more than anything else. > > In any event, from our perspective he’s an indiot and did something very bad, but has since repented and has paid every penalty the church can enforce. If he was repentant about his error, however grave, it has been forgiven. The first part is arguable, I think, keep him close by and he can’t do much harm. Sure. But the second part of your post, while perhaps true, is what gets me the angriest. If Cardinal Law had held any post other than Archbishop, say, School Superintendent, he’d be sitting in a jail right now. The church has shuffled him around and protected him just like he protected and shuffled the molesting priests around. Maybe God and the Pope have forgiven him, but criminal code demands a bit more than “I’m really really sorry”. Oh, and what **gobear** said. I’d laugh but I’m getting pissed. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/12 "2005-04-08T15:02:52Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > There wasn’t much to do with Law. Rather than farm him out to the boonies and put him into early retirement, they elected to cut his power base off and keep him stuffed in a sack close to home. He’s hardly stuffed in a sack. He’ll be one of the 117 Cardinals choosing the next Pope. And his ‘sack’ is a damned classy address. If I ever commit a major sin, I hope I get ‘punished’ in similar style. > [@](#): > > As in, he can’t do any damage stuffed into an office in Rome. I suspect he got into the post-papal ceremonies by being nearby more than anything else. Ah, there’s something from the OP’s link that I skipped over. I shouldn’t have: > [@](#): > > Chester Gillis, an expert in Catholicism at Georgetown University, said celebrating a Mass during the mourning period is not only an honor, but a position of influence. > > In their homilies, cardinals usually indicate what they think are the key issues for the church ahead. Observers scour the speeches for clues to how a cardinal will vote. > > “This is an ability to express oneself to one’s colleagues all at one time,” Gillis said. IOW, he’s one of a handful of cardinals who will get to speak to essentially the entire conclave at once. He’s definitely part of the in-crowd, even among the 117. > [@](#): > > In any event, from our perspective he’s an indiot and did something very bad, but has since repented and has paid every penalty the church can enforce. If he was repentant about his error, however grave, it has been forgiven. I was hoping someone would raise this issue. It’s important to talk about forgiveness and repentance, and what these should mean in the case of one whose sin was abusing a position of power and trust in the church. In the Christian worldview, sin is our state, and sinning is inevitable. We are called to repent of our own sins, accept God’s forgiveness, and move on. With respect to the sins of others, we are called to recognize that God has forgiven them, and follow His example in this. But we forgive our fellow Christians _as Christians_, not as priests or televangelists or archbishops. When the sin is one of abusing one’s role as the shepherd of the flock, part of the repentance needs be abandoning the role of shepherd, and rejoining the flock - _as no more than one of the flock._ When you’ve been managing the henhouse, and you’ve proven yourself to be the fox, I’ll forgive you your foxness if you have repented, but you must abandon the management of henhouses. This should not be viewed as punishment - unless one regards the everyday lives of everyday people as punishment. The Catholic Church could have reduced Bernard Law to being an ordinary Catholic, with no remaining ecclesiastical title. They could have bought him a nice house out in a small town in Nebraska, and given him a pension suitable to his needs. Instead, Pope John Paul II brought him to Rome, gave him a glitzy title at a fancy address, and made sure he was part of the in-crowd of the in-crowd within the Church’s heirarchy. And not only will he be one of the 117 who vote on JPII’s successor, but he’ll be one of nine who gets to speak to all 117 in the coming days, before they begin their conclave to choose the next Pope. This must be some new meaning of ‘penance’ that I’ve been unfamiliar with until now. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/13 "2005-04-08T15:04:41Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Psst… “lawn chair” posts aren’t allowed, even in the Pit. Sorry, I just don’t see what hasn’t been said. I should have subscribed. > [@](#): > > This information presented out of altruism as, despite having a higher post count than mine, you’ve not been around all that long. Post count got nothing to do with wisdom, and I didn’t think it does. I just hate to leave a comment left alone, thus the high count. Anyway, the actual length of time can be seen from my ,“Join Date: Feb 2005” versus yours “Jan 2003” Clearly you know better than I, that I should have just subscribed. However, now that I am here, I’ll have to post something on topic. Hmmmm… > [@smiling bandit](#): > > In any event, from our perspective he’s an idiot and did something very bad, but has since repented and has paid every penalty the church can enforce. If he was repentant about his error, however grave, it has been forgiven. smiling bandit, I have an honest question. How do we know that he has honestly repented? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/14 "2005-04-08T15:08:49Z")
> [@Vlad/Igor](#): > > In his defence, I would say that the Pope could not be directly responsible for the ongoing molestation that happened during his tenure, unless it could be shown he knew about it before action was forced by the laity. The RCC is too big to hold him accountable for every single priest. I want to make it clear that I don’t hold the Pope responsible for the acts of molestation by individual priests; I hold him responsible _for the institutional response to those acts_. And that response, even before now, was rather anemic. But to honor those who enabled those acts of molestation - AFAIAC, that amounts to an endorsement of the entire policy, right on down to the parish priests buggering little boys. Wojytla is completely responsible for that. ---
**Author:** ![Greathouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greathouse/32/2992_2.png) [@Greathouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greathouse)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/15 "2005-04-08T15:33:31Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > \…Wojytla…\ What is that word? ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/16 "2005-04-08T15:42:06Z")
> [@Greathouse](#): > > What is that word? Pope John Paul II’s secret identity as a mild-mannered Polish goalkeeper. (Really.) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/17 "2005-04-08T15:42:58Z")
> [@Greathouse](#): > > What is that word? John Paul II was originally Karol Wojtyla. Looks like I misspelt. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/18 "2005-04-08T15:44:53Z")
It’s not a word, but a name. The Pode was not born named John, he was born David Jones, same as David Bowie’s raeal name. Whoops, sorry, I meant, to say Karol Jozef “Lolek” Wojtyl. Source:[http://genealogy.about.com/od/famous\_family\_trees/p/pope\_jpii.htm](http://genealogy.about.com/od/famous_family_trees/p/pope_jpii.htm) By the way, I am sure the name has a literal meaning, but I can not find it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/19 "2005-04-08T15:56:47Z")
> [@DaddyTimesTwo](#): > > If Cardinal Law had held any post other than Archbishop, say, School Superintendent, he’d be sitting in a jail right now. Convicted of what crime? (To stave off a needless sequence: I agree that in particular, had he been a school superintendent, he might have gone to jail. But are you contending if he had been a stockbroker, chef, or electrical engineer, he would have gone to jail?) ---
**Author:** ![Snickers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snickers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snickers)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/20 "2005-04-08T15:57:27Z")
> [@Vlad/Igor](#): > > In his defence, I would say that the Pope could not be directly responsible for the ongoing molestation that happened during his tenure, unless it could be shown he knew about it before action was forced by the laity. Bullshit. Bull Shit. (Not picking on you personally, **Vlad/Igor** , you just happened to be the last person to echo this sentiment, which I’ve seen often lately on the boards.) The Pope’s the leader of his institution. It’s his job to fix what’s wrong with that institution, even if the wrongness started ages ago way before he got there. Even if he wasn’t aware of it before it was brought to his attention. For something this heinous, the fact that the official word from on high is basically, “Don’t do that again,” is dishonorable, cowardly, and a slap in the face. Especially from a spiritual leader. He’s destroyed the trust of his laity, and basically has enabled future lapses. It’s shameful. He’s absolutely responsible for rooting out this wrongdoing, castigating it, and denouncing it for the shame and horror that it is. Instead, he’s done largely nothing, even “rewarding” one of the major instigators with a posh address and highly visible position. In a way, his actions are worse than Law’s betrayal. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314.md?page=2)