At the Crunchy Con blog, in a discussion about the hypocrisy of Church leaders who give succor to politicians who flout the most important teachings of their Church, Rod quotes blogger Mark Gordon who writes about the supposed arrogance of Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston.
This sad truth was punctuated for me in 1998, when one of the innumerable Kennedy family scions, Michael Kennedy, died in a tragic skiing accident in Colorado. On the day following the mishap, Bernard Cardinal Law, then the Archbishop of Boston, cancelled his appointments and made haste via chauffeured limousine to Hyannisport in order to “minister” to the once-more stricken Kennedy clan, whose members had been quite noisily thumbing their nose at the Church for decades. The Cardinal’s response was characterized by some as an act of mercy, if not evangelization. The truth, I think, is that it was merely a gesture of class solidarity. The cardinal reflexively considered himself to be personal pastor to the powerful, the wealthy, the important people, people like him. Fact is, he wouldn’t have thought of not going.
I remember reflecting at the time how askew the Cardinal’s priorities must have seemed to a hypothetical Margaret O’Sullivan. Imagine a lace-curtain Irish lady who lives on the third-floor of a tenement in Dorchester. She attends Mass every morning, silently reciting the Rosary while walking the several blocks to her family parish. Faithful to the Church’s teaching, Mrs. O’Sullivan and her late husband, a mechanic for the transportation authority, raised eight children. Two are toll-takers on the Mass Pike and two are housewives. There’s a cop, a priest, a junior at UMass and a graphic artist. Mrs. O’Sullivan never had a proper education, and so there is plenty she doesn’t know, but this she surely does: if one of her children or grandchildren is killed skiing in New Hampshire (none of them could afford Aspen), there is no way - none - that the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston is going to cancel his appointments, hop the Red Line to Morrissey Boulevard and climb the wainscoted back staircase to the O’Sullivan compound. And he won’t be offering any graveside comfort at Cedar Grove either. And if you suggest he might, Margaret will reply sharply, “Yeah, right. Who am I, Rose Kennedy?”
I have to disagree. And I do so quite strongly. I’ve told this story before, but it bears repeating. I have been nothing if not a critic of Cardinal Lawsince the Scandal broke, but I also have personal knowledge that he is not an elitist would never stoop to minister to any but the rich and powerful.
In 1992, my brother was the cardinal’s escort at a Boston archdiocesan event. Someone asked my brother how our sister-in-law, who had been stricken with lymphatic cancer, was doing and he told them not so good. The cardinal inquired as to the situation and my brother told him about her. The cardinal asked which hospital she was in and that was it. He said no more.
That night, with no fanfare and no notice to anyone, the cardinal showed up after visiting hours, dressed only in his regular blacks and Roman collar to pray with my sister-in-law. Law was scheduled to depart on a major pilgrimage to Europe with a large group from the archdiocese early the next morning, but took time out of his schedule at the last minute to minister to one scared member of his flock. That gesture did wonders for the flowering of her Catholic faith which had only just begun when she was diagnosed with the disease. It reassured her to know that the cardinal would minister to an ordinary Catholic like her.
This never appeared in a newspaper and no one would know of it if I did not write about it on my blog.
Cardinal Law has faults—a notion with which I’m sure he’d agree—and made many mistakes, but the charge of elitism rings very hollow indeed.
Thanks for posting this, Dom. Your story does bear repeating. Stories such as this are truly legion regarding Cardinal Law.
Before I entered the Seminary, (almost a month before, actually) my mother passed away very suddenly at 41 years old. She hadn’t been sick, we had no warning, and she died in her sleep. The Cardinal must have called my house a half dozen times to inquire as to our well being and offer his prayers and support. It was a great comfort to me, as a young man not even at the beginning of Seminary formation yet, and a great comfort for my father and brother who couldn’t believe the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston would take such a personal interest in our loss.
To repeat the closing of your blog post, the charge of elitism rings very hollow indeed.
Indeed, Cardinal Law was extraordinary in his desire to visit the sick and the bereaved. Ask almost anyone who staffed a nurse’s station in greater Boston in the late ‘80s and 90s (especially in the venings)..ask almost any funeral director. I know for sure that he devoted several hours, day after day, for almost 20 years…several hours away from chancery and cathedral, praying at hospital beds, warmly signing the foreheads of the dying with the cross, hugging parents of murder victims, crying with the bereaved.
When many pastors “passed” on doing the funerals of those who died from AIDS, he made sure the cathedral welcomed them. Despite Queer-Nation and Act-Up throwing gross demonstrations against him, almost every health-care provider in the AIDS pandemic knows that Law was there for the sick.
And at the cathedral, he occasionaly took a funeral or wedding for odinary residents of the nearby housing project.
Faults, sure. But as much a pastor to the Kennidy’s of Savin Hill as the Kennedy’s of Hyannisport.
BTW, down in Hyannis (a different diocese), ask the Brazilians and Hispanics there who now outnumber the anglo’s at Rose Kennedy’s old church—when he was in Hyannis, he made sure to see them too!
This is about what I’d expect from someone who’s given up on the Catholic Church, and who is now backing up the truck to run over his foil once again.
I mean, how much mileage can he get out of demonstrably false attacks on the leadership of his new outfit?
I’m no Law fan but I’m glad you posted this. Let’s not portray the man as being worse than he is. Of course he went to see the Kennedys, Cardinal Spellman in New York hightailed it to their sides whenever they needed him too but that was the Kennedys—a totally different situation. It never gets into the paper but many bishops, and even Cardinals find the time to show mercy to ordinary people during times of sickness and death.
Dom,
Your comment certainly corresponds with the Cardinal Law I knew.
But more to the point,who has verification of the story our blogger is telling?
My search of the Boston Globe’s archives says that Michael Kennedy died on New Year’s eve 1997, making it kind of improbable that the cardinal “cancelled his appointments” the following day, a holiday for most people.
A day later,there was a wake on Cape Cod attended by hundreds of people. The Globe noted that Cardinal Law met with the Kennedy family for 10 minutes privately before the viewing hours, leading me to believe that he drove or was driven to the wake, made a brief appearance, then left. Hardly dropping everything to spend hours with a rich friend.
I suppose one can argue that the cardinal should have had nothing to do with the Kennedy clan because of their pro-choice record, etc. But given the family’s public role in Massachusetts, it hardly seem unusual that the state’s most important bishop would make an appearance at a wake.
It’s also interesting that Cardinal Law’s public reaction to Michael Kennedy’s death was to express sorrow for the family, “as for any other family” in the same circumstances.
In the sentence leading up to Mr. Gordon’s account, Rod wrote:
“When church leaders—Catholic, Orthodox and otherwise—fail to reprove or impose any sanction at all upon members of the Church who actively promote the evil of abortion, they not only fail in their responsibility before God, they undermine the moral authority of their church.”
“Fail in their responsibility before God”? Come on Rod and Mark, the account cited here is about the Cardinal visited a grieving family. You guys may have problems that the family in question is the Kennedy family, but even the Kennedys deserve sympathy and compassion at their times of sorrow.
I think the item about Cardinal Law cited by Rod and Mark is a failed example for the point they want to make. It shows pettiness and even a mean, uncharitable streak in their hearts.
Thankfully, Cardinal Law, the Kennedys and all of us will be judge in the end, not by mere men, but by a loving God.
Don’t know about Law, but do know that Bishop Olmsted made a personal visit to a friend in the hospital right after having been told that the friend would have been at his Mass, but was sick in the hospital.
And the Bishops did not know her previously.
What wonderful bishops.
I’m glad Cardinal Law did this for people. Obviously there can be questions about other segments of his pastoral career, but darn it, _this_ part is _exactly_ what a bishop should do—be a father to his people!
As for the rest—look, if the most evil person on earth has a young son who dies in a sad accident, that’s not the time to punish the most evil person on earth. By showing sympathy and love on such occasions, the bishop does his ordinary duty—and probably hopes to turn the person’s heart toward something better.
You can get out the chopping block next week, or at the most evil person on earth’s own funeral. But not at the funeral of anyone’s child.
Re: appointments on New Year’s Day
Ah, c’mon, what a gimme! Have you forgotten in less than a week?
New Year’s Day is a Holy Day of Obligation in most years. That means the Cardinal had to say Mass. Lots of Mass. Probably parties and dinners with family or diocesan people, too.
I never thought I’d feel compelled to write in defense of Cardinal Law. Well, never say “never,” I guess.
Early in his priesthood, Cardinal Law was a parish priest in Biloxi, Mississippi. He used to regularly stop by for coffee and French bread at my aunt’s kitchen table. My aunt pretty much WAS the “hypothetical Margaret O’Sullivan.” She was a part-time kindergarten tutor, my uncle was a mail carrier, and they were raising 7 boys in a 3-bedroom house. So it was crowded, noisy and as far from “elite” as anything I can imagine, but my aunt always said that Father Law loved to come to her house.
That took place years ago when he was a parish priest, so maybe that doesn’t prove much. Except that I also know an elderly nun in a nursing home in Jackson who cherishes her regular telephone chats with “Bernie.” She is neither powerful nor wealthy—she can do nothing for him—but she is clearly very important to him.
I don’t think Mark Gordon knows anything about Cardinal Law, except what the press reports. Cardinal Law has his sins, and he will answer for them, but “elitism” simply isn’t one of them.
I live in Australia and had never heard of Cardinal Law until I started reading blogs. He comes across as the worst non sexual abusing priest who ever lived.
I have a couple of questions which either you or the readers of your blog might be able to answer.
1.Is it possible to find an objective assessment of Cardinal Law and his role in the sexual abuse scandal?
2. Why was Cardinal Law appointed to a church in Rome? This appears to be a reward and sticks in the craw of many people.
3.It was posted on a ‘Catholic’ discussion board in Australia that CL used to swan around the city in a chauffer driven limo with tinted windows. Is this correct?
1. Probably not. I don’t know of one. As it is you either from those who know him personally or those who didn’t know him but only guess at him from the news stories.
2. It’s a long explanation. The short reason is probably because Pope John Paul II recognized that Law had insights and/or abilities that he wanted to have at hand in Rome. Popes have rarely taken public perception into account, much to the chagrin of Vatican watchers.
3. He did not. Like nearly every archbishop in the US, he had a priest-secretary who usually drove while Law sat in the passenger seat reading, talking on the phone, or resting in preparation for his next meeting or visit or event.
I could tell other stories about Law, like the time he baptized my nephew in the chapel of his residence and afterward how he spent time with my very nervous sister who cried when asked about having a religious vocation (she tended to be kind of fragile at the time). He comforted her and gave her pastoral advice.
On the other hand, many priests will tell you that the cardinal had a tendency toward micromanaging and ignoring the advice of the people in the chancery he should have listened to while simultaneously leaving too much to other deputies he should not have (which is the basis of so much of the Scandal problems). They’ll also tell you that he avoided conflict to a fault—a trait shared by many bishops—and at times could be arrogant, an inherent danger of the job.
Like I said, Cardinal Law was not and is not perfect by any means, but he is nowhere near the monster he has been portrayed.
I find Gordon’s attempt to have his readers condemn Law on the basis of the sufferings of someone who lives *entirely in Gordon’s imagination* to be repellent, along with Dreher’s endorsement of it. Law did (or didn’t do) quite enough verifiable misdeeds to be going along with if you want to condemn him, but assuming his neglect of the fictional Margaret O’Sullivan in favour of the Kennedys (hey, it’s not like rich people care when their children die – they’re rich, don’t you know!) and then slagging him doesn’t reflect well either on his charity or his use of logic.
1. Cardinal Law was sympathetic to those who were suffering whether the suffering was physical or emotional in nature.
2. Cardinal Law was indifferent to the suffering of those children and minors being sexually abused by the priests in his charge.
That describes a Jeckyll and Hyde personality unless he was following orders from above.
3. Cardinal Law disliked confrontation, making it likely he would follow orders from above. He was known as a conservative bishop who served during the pontificate of a conservative pope.
If he was following orders from above, the Roman basilica might have been an expression of gratitude from a grateful pontiff.
I think we don’t know, and probably never will know, the whole story.
Those are some mighty big leaps of logic unsupported by anything.
Granted the evidence presented in this thread is anecdotal, but if this evidence is sufficient to exhonorate Cardinal Law, it is also sufficient to condemn him. I was merely offering an interpretation opposite to yours.
Re the consolation prize, I took that conclusion from the smoking gun letter. Those who can, tend to protect their own. It’s an inherently human trait.
1. Fr. Benedict Groeschel once gave what I found to be an objective assesment of Cardinal Law in a talk which was recorded.
2. Cardinal Law was appointed to Rome as a sin that God forgives.
3. Bishops almost never drive cars because once a bishop was in a car accident and the diocese was sued instead of the man.
The subtle point you missed Carrie is that I wasn’t trying to exonerate him. Of course, he made massive mistakes that hurt hundreds, if not thousands, of people and brought scandal and discredit to the Church. But neither is he an ogre or devil as some portray him to be.
My point is that it’s too easy to turn flawed human beings into two-dimensional cartoon characters, like Snideley Whiplash, twirling his mustache and looking only for his next opportunity to do a dastardly deed.
It is good to tell others (and remind God our Father) of virtues we have witnessed in any person, even a hardened criminal. That’s not to exonerate him/her from wrongdoing but is a plea for mercy. How can Domenico and others be faulted for doing what Jesus and Mary taught and modeled?
Thank you for showing us Bernard Law from his best angle.
.’
From “The Spiritual Maxims” Fr. Nicholas Grou. S.J.
http://www.theworkofgod.org/LIBRARY/Spir_Max/Maxim__7.htm
This is the kind of judgement I think we should leave to God. We can never know with certainty what the Cardinal intended in going to comfort the Kennedy Family in their sorrow. It may have been for the glory of God and love of neighbor alone. I just don’t think God would take a limo.
As I said before, he didn’t drive about the archdiocese in a limo. I saw his car at my parish on several occasions.
Your brother was Cardinal Law’s employee in a manner of speaking. I think that explains his efforts on behalf of your sil.
If we really want to find out what Cardinal Law was like let’s ask his former director of personnel, Fr. Tom Oates. Oh wait. We can’t. He is in South America with the Society of St. James the Apostle and unavailabe for questioning. What a lucky chance.
With churches closing, millions in deficit, architecture destroyed, apostle to the Kennedys, vocations plummeting, Cardinal Law will indeed be remembered for many things.
A priest friend of mine who is in his 80s asked me if I thought that Cardinal Law would be buried here in Boston. I said that if they flew his body over the people wouldn’t allow the plane to land.
I still feel that way.
Some bishops drive themselves- like the former bishop of Phoenix but I guess that didn’t work out too well.
Wasn’t Cardinal Law’s official car a black lincoln towncar with tinted windows? Near enough to a limo in my mind. And if his priest secretary was driving, as an official employee, associate of the diocese you mean HE wouldn’t be sued? Come on.
I am still stunnded that people are willing to defend Cardinal Law. That I don’t understand.
Mary,
You should perhaps get your facts straight before making accusations. For one thing, my sister-in-law died in 1992. My brother did not start working for the archdiocese until some time after that.
Not to mention all the others with stories to tell.
Oh, and I’ve talked with Fr. Oates. He’s a friend of mine. He visits Boston about twice per year and stays in my parish. He’s not unreachable by any means.
What you don’t seem to understand is that not everyone fits in the neat little boxes you’ve put them in. It makes it so much easier to condemn them when you turn them into straw men.
The subtle point you missed Carrie is that I wasn’t trying to exonerate him. Of course, he made massive mistakes that hurt hundreds, if not thousands, of people and brought scandal and discredit to the Church. But neither is he an ogre or devil as some portray him to be.
Dom, your point wasn’t subtle. You stated it quite clearly so that no one could miss it, including me. Yet the points you and others have offered in his defense just as easily condemn him when the reverse can also be said of him.
He acted out of the character that you portray of him on the subject of sexual abuse. A man with a good heart rejected hurting children and teenagers and favored their persecutors. The question is why? And the most logical answer I can find is that he was following orders. It is consistent with the personality you and others have described here in this thread. He was a good second level manager doing what the boss wanted. The boss rewarded him for following orders, as is consistent with human nature.
Can he be faulted for doing what he thought was the pope’s wishes? Given the outcome, seemingly he can be. But who among us has not paved the way to hell with good intentions at one time or another. A man of true integrity, recognizing the disaster he had created by following orders, might have refused the appointment and sought a monastery where he could live out the remainder of his life in obscurity. Cardinal Law accepted a different end to the story.
There is little doubt that the basilica shield kept further exposure from taking place. Here in an obscure monastery, he would have been hunted out.
So which is more noble in someone at the second level of command? To follow the leadership of the man who represents Christ on earth, or to minister to the downtrodden and the children? The two should not be in conflict for a Roman Catholic bishop. It appears that in Cardinal Law’s situation they were. What can be said about that?
Maybe you think it’s the most logical, but it’s not. Occam’s Razor would say that it is exactly what it appears to be: He wanted to avoid public scandal, he underestimated the inability of the perverts to change, he wanted to protect the institution.
Claiming that he was following orders from above when there has never been a single shred of evidence that he received such orders is irresponsible calumny against Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict.
You can only claim there is no evidence if you reject the smoking gun letter.
Isn’t the basic point here being lost? Namely, that the bishops of this country don’t act as if cooperation with the grave sin of abortion is any big deal? They still go out of their way to make sure the Kennedys are attended to, despite as Mark Gordon states, the members of that clan “had been quite noisily thumbing their nose at the Church for decades.” Let’s say the Mark Gordon is wrong in saying that Cardinal Law would not have gone out of his way for ordinary Catholics. Does that answer the question of why he went out of his way for notorious dissenters? Does it answer Rod Dreher’s question as to why they still do it for Pelosi et al?
“The sanctity of life issue is not one among many. Why do some Catholic bishops continue to succor politicians like Pelosi? Where is the courage of Catholic bishops of yore, like the late Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans, who excommunicated several segregationist Louisiana Catholic politicians who tried to make it illegal for the Church to integrate Catholic schools? (And yes, because every time I write about Catholics, a small but vocal minority assumes I’m trying in some way to extol the virtues of Orthodoxy by criticizing Catholicism; it’s not true, but all the same, here’s an Orthodox priest rightly calling for the Orthodox Church to censure of pro-abortion Orthodox politicians Sens. Paul Sarbanes and Olympia Snowe. And here’s an Orthodox writer criticizing the Ecumenical Patriarch for publicly praising the pro-abortion Sarbanes as a “good and faithful servant.”)
When church leaders—Catholic, Orthodox and otherwise—fail to reprove or impose any sanction at all upon members of the Church who actively promote the evil of abortion, they not only fail in their responsibility before God, they undermine the moral authority of their church.”
Hear, hear.
Not only do I reject it, I rejected it back in October. It’s old news that was debunked back in 2001 and 2002 when it showed up.
I don’t disagree with the wider point necessarily. My blog entry was addressing the specific characterization of Law as being an elitist unconcerned with hypothetical average Catholics.
Let’s say the Mark Gordon is wrong in saying that Cardinal Law would not have gone out of his way for ordinary Catholics.
It’s not a “let’s say” matter. The truth is, Gordon’s wrong.
Does that answer the question of why he went out of his way for notorious dissenters? Does it answer Rod Dreher’s question as to why they still do it for Pelosi et al?
Yeah, and how ‘bout that Nazarene actually dining with tax collectors, befriending whores, etc, etc?
Look, the point is, Rod and Mark are off base on this one. Cardinal Law was not, and is not, an elitist unconcerned with “made up” ordinary Catholics. Dom’s story, and others can be multiplied a zillion times. Including Epiphany Sunday, 1999. The day my mom died. I’m a basic nobody, the Cardinal never even knew my mom, and yet…well, never mind going into that.
Like I said, Dom’s story can be multiplied many, many times.
Deal with it.
One advantage that Cardinal Law will have at the Final Judgment is that his sins will all have been revealed before the whole world beforehand. Oh, the agony that we will all face when our own sins will then be revealed! It would behoove all of those who hold him in such contempt, as so many are doing now, to keep that Final Judgment in mind!
The fact that the document wasn’t actually kept secret doesn’t address the point I’m making. The document exists. It was on the Vatican website. It addresses clergy sexual abuse with minors.
What options did the letter leave for the bishops? They were charged with preserving the sanctity of the priesthood which would surely be damaged if the scandal got out, as we can see that it has been when it did get out. Therefore in following orders they tried to cover it up. The fact that nearly all of the bishops did so is evidence that they were answering to some common authority, whether it be a decision at the bishop’s conference, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or the pope himself.
Not only do I reject it, I rejected it back in October. It’s old news that was debunked back in 2001 and 2002 when it showed up.
Yup, and when I read your rejection back in October, I wasn’t convinced that your argument made a difference to the matter of the bishops culpability. I still say that Law was following orders, and the basilica was the consolation prize.
Carrie: I’m astounded at your ability to ignore the clear explanations given not just by me but also by others to come to such an outlandish conclusion.
Dom, I was happy to see your post because that reflects the same CL that we knew in the South before he came to Boston. For the last 5 yrs, I’ve been absolutely sure that he (& many others) made foul mistakes in the Scandal but I’m also sure that there are many many many people who gladly make capital out of the suffering of the victims & the suffering of Church members in its aftermath. It took courage for you to take on Dreher’s assessment & I appreciate it.
Carrie-and others who can see no good in Cardinal Law let me share with you something I observed during this grave time.
I was able to see Cardinal Law on several occasions “behind the scenes”. I worked for the Archdiocese in a way, more so under one of the Secretarys.
What I try to explain to people is that Cardinal Law, to me, seemed like a grandfather that didn’t understand what was going on in his grandchildren’s world. We can all say “How could he let the abuse of children continue” “How could he not listen to those who were hurt or knew about the hurt”. We say this because most of us are around children. He was a man, working amonsgst men, adult men at that and probably had little regular contact with children, like families generally are. Maybe he was trying to protect his child, the Church. Maybe he didn’t have the same sensibilities most of us have about children, after all he was told that these priests could be rehab’d.
Errantly, as he now admits, but I don’t believe that he was planning and executing all sorts of maliciously intented deeds.
Is he not fallen like the rest of us? Surely we do some great good and some great evil. We think we are of great character, and then we cheat at work or slander someone, or drink too much, or become selfish slef-serving beings. Does this make us one sided all evil?
No, just fallen.
I don’t think Rome is a promotion-he’s not really affecting many people in Rome, as I understand it.
Jenb, early on in the scandal I had come to the conclusion that the abusive priests really didn’t comprehend either the nature of children or the nature of the child-parent relationship. The celibate priesthood provides many good things for the Church. But it does inevitably institutionalize a kind of blindness to certain aspects of family life, as we living the family life are blinded to certain aspects of the priesthood.
I do think the bishops were trying to protect the Church, and even to some extent protect the laity from their inevitable horror at discovering what had taken place. We Catholics would certainly all be better off if we didn’t have to know what has taken place, though the only way for that to be possible would be for it never to have happened. Pretending it didn’t happen—and lying in order to pretend—is sinful first and then illegal. The teachings of the Church should have informed our leaders that this protection was wrongly headed. Yet nearly all of them acted by the book in lock step. The only question our journalists are not answering conclusively would seem to be who wrote the book?
Cardinal Law is gone. Let him go.
Let us pray O’Malley has a better compass and
more guts.
Kelly,
You mean “the Nazarene” who said “go and sin no more?” That one? Think the Kennedys have gotten that message? Any evidence that they have?
No need to get snide with me.
That’s the one I was talking about, Fenian.
I’ve personally witnessed Cardinal Law chastise not just Senators Kennedy and Kerry on their pro-abortion stances (as have HUNDREDS of people present in the Cathedral of the Holy Cross and on the Boston Common to name just two places) but have also seen him (along with hundreds of children at World Youth Day in the 1990s) chastise former Ambassador Raymond Flynn for not being as strong a pro-life witness to his then boss, Bill Clinton.
(By the way, I was not being “snide.”)
Did the Kennedys get that message? It doesn’t look like it, does it. But then, did everyone to whom Jesus ordered to “sin no more” get it?
Here’s the thing. Again. The charge was made that Cardinal Law catered to the rich and beautiful while ignoring the not-so-rich-and-beautiful. That charge has been overwhelmingly refuted.
I marvel that people are not glad to know that this is so, frankly, and seem to prefer believing otherwise.
Kelly, why should we be “glad” to know something that is hardly more than we expect from our bishops. It’s part of being a humble servant to the flock of Christ. It follows in the footsteps of the One who washed feet. Our only reason for being “glad” to know that Cardinal Law was capable of being what Christ called him to be is that we have been conditioned to something else entirely by too many bishops.
Carrie,
We’re all called to holiness. Yes, when we are holy, we are nothing special…only servants doing what we are expected to do.
But again, this is not what this discussion is about. A charge was made against an individual and that charge was successfully refuted.
I say, HURRAY!!!!!!!!!!
And I wish you much joy.
Finding truth is something that I also agree we can be glad about.
Kelly,
Both you and Dom have made clear that Cardinal Law was not elitist. I don’t dispute that. My only point was that that was a minor point in Rod Dreher’s article. The main point was that bishops in this country don’t act as if they really believe that abortion is evil. All that is done is talk and talk is cheap (and easy). The lukewarm (at best) support for the pro-life movement isn’t limited to the Rembert Weaklands of the world. You’ve probably seen the articles Diogenes has written recently regarding Archbishop Chaput. He was very outspoken in correcting Mario “personally opposed” Cuomo, but when faced with an incoming “personally opposed but…” Catholic governor, the only thing heard from the archbishop’s office is the sound of crickets chirping. Again, I’ll quote Dreher:
Yes, where is that kind of courage? Outside of the Diocese of Lincoln, does the “e” word even get mentioned, much less carried out?
Oh and I’m so glad you weren’t being snide. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go check the bathroom mirror to see if I have “STUPID” printed across my forehead. (Yes I am being snide, but at least I’ll admit it.)
I wasn’t addressing Rod’s article. I was addressing Mark Gordon’s characterization of Cardinal Law as an elitist as quoted by Rod in his article, which is what I said in my original post up above.
Wow! Old post…hope it’s not too late to weigh in. Pauli from Contrapauli.blogspot directed me here.
Hi, Kelly!!! I remember you from way back.
As an erstwhile Irish-Italian Bostonian who grew up in a triple-decker on Savin Hill Avenue, I just want to go on record as saying that that stereotype of the mythical Lace Curtain Irish Lady is straight out of Central Casting and quite offensive.
And, though I’ve been away from Boston a good long while—left during the Cardinal Medeiros era—I have always felt that Cardinal Law could not possibly be the evil monster his critics make him out to be.
Dreher externalizes everything. As someone said above, we will all be called to the dread Final Judgment. Maybe we should spend a little more time dissecting our own souls and a little less time maliciously misrepresenting other people’s souls.