Bernard Cardinal Law resigned in 2002 as Archbishop of Boston as a result of the clergy sexual abuse scandals. Subsequently he was appointed “Archpriest of the Patriarchal Liberian Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome”, and as a result of that position celebrated one of the Pope’s funeral masses. Whether it was proper for Cardinal Law to be so honored is currently being discussed in the Pit.
My vague understanding, based on nothing whatsover, was that Cardinal Law was given some sort of sinecure in the Vatican, with no real responsibilities, to get him out of the line of fire.
My question is what in involved with the position of the Archpriest of St. Mary Major? And does Cardinal Law have any other formal or informal positions in the Vatican, other than merely being a Cardinal?
He’s essentially the head priest at that church, just as pastor of a local (geographical) parish leads that parish. As far as his cardinality goes, he’s Cardinal-Priest of S. Susanna, which means he’s formally the head priest of the church of St. Susanna in Rome, which is actually a rather powerful position as regards American cardinals.
Note that I said “formally”. William Cardinal Keeler spends most of his time in Baltimore, far from S. Maria degli Angeli, as did Cardinal Law (in Boston) for the 17 years before he moved to Rome.
Even so…his post with that church is not seen as a “rather powerful position”
John Allen from the National Catholic Reporter is probably the most qualified journalist covering the Vatican. He has an interesting story about Cardinal law
Allen makes the point that his membership on other congregations and councils allows him to play a more influential role than what he is doing as archpriest.
Okay, I may have overstated the case and confounded symbolism with power. Then again, this is the Catholic Church we’re talking about.
S. Susanna is billed as the “Home of the American Catholic Church in Rome”, and has been for quite some time. John Paul II elevated Law to this cardinal priesthood with full knowledge of that. The statement is, at least to my mind, unmistakable.
Does that cite mean Bernie “The staff ate my homework” Law is still the Cardinal of Boston? Archbishop Sean O’Malley now runs the archdiocese - conventional wisdom is that he didn’t get the cardinalship that ordinarily goes with the job as a way of the Church showing some humility at a time when that was (is) desperately necessary. O’Malley’s been a bit ham-handed about closing churches for sale to pay off legal settlements, though, and that may keep him from ever getting the red cap.
Law is no longer the Cardinal of Boston. Actually, there’s no such thing as “The Cardinal of Boston”. Bishop O’Malley is the current Archbishop of the Archdiocese, but he is not a Cardinal. While it is usual for the Archbishop of a major Archdiocese to become a Cardinal, it isn’t mandatory and the two jobs aren’t really related. The cite said “Cardinal Law of Boston”, which I read to mean “Cardinal Law, who used to live in Boston.”
From what I’ve read about O’Malley, it’s likely he’s been brought in as a hatchetman to close a bunch of churches, get the Archdiocese back on a sound financial footing, and take all the heat from the laity for doing so. Then he’ll move on and a new Archbishop will be appointed, who will probably become a Cardinal after a short while.
It might also take a while depending on how free-handed the new pope is with creating new cardinalities. JP2 expanded the college quite a bit, but the next guy might want to wait until there’s an opening.
Well, from beagledave’s link, it seems that Archpriest of St. Mary Major is indeed a sinecure with few responsibilities, though one of the few appears to be celebrating a papal funeral mass.
On the other hand, his continuing work on eight different Vatican congregations and councils is surprising. To what extent is this normal for a Cardinal? Does it indicate that he may be acting as a Vatican insider, or is it just a group of committees that lots of cardinals are named to?
