Turns out the whole “Banishment of Cdl. Law” thing is totally bogus

Allen locutus, causa finita.

I figured.

Elizabeth Stoker-Bruenig has a Smart Look at Pope Francis
Francis' Baffling Chilean Appointment
Pope Lauds Iran Nuke Deal
Francis inspires rising tide of exorcists and exorcisms
  • http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/ Terry

    I knew it was bogus when I read it.

  • Subsistent

    In the piece linked to above, John Allen wrote: “However the new pope decides to deal with Law, there’s no doubt that recovery from the abuse scandals will be high on his to-do list.” My speculation: Could it be that Cdl. Mahony senses this, and is (vainly) trying to flatter his way into Pope Francis’s good graces in the tweet of his which is the subject of Mr. Shea’s previous post?

    • http://www.dymphnaswell.blogspot.com Dymphna

      Subsistent–it certainly could be. I’m shocked at the lack of class his tweets have. Very sad.

  • Nicholas

    Mark, I’m a little uncertain whether you wish Pope Francis had gone all-out on Cardinal Law or not. I’d like to argue that it was not only implausible to begin with, but ultimately better that he quietly handled this situation.

    1) If I’m interpreting the Pope’s character correctly from what I’ve been reading, he’s not the kind of man to go in, guns blazing, on the first day; rather, he takes enough time to figure out the best course of action and then implements it without hesitation.

    2) Kicking Cardinal Law out on Thursday would have made SNAP very happy, but left the rest of us scratching our heads at the unmerciful conduct of a man who has consistently preached and lived mercy. Yes, I say unmerciful; while I think Law has been treated too kindly since 2002, and should not be living at St. Mary Major (he has not been the Archpriest since 2011), his removal should be handled in an orderly fashion with respect for old age and infirmity. The sort of thing the Daily Mail was reporting would not have been an act of tough love, but an impulsive act of revenge, and no pope should do such things.

    • Mark Shea

      I’m torn. I want the Church to be the sacrament of mercy, so I’m loathe to see the pope run around lopping off heads (and I don’t think he will). At the same time, I can’t deny my heart leapt at the thought of a bishop actually facing consequences for his horrible neglect of children.

      On balance though, I think I come down on the side of mercy and suspect (though I’m not really sure) that the whole kick ass approach so beloved by so many Americans is probably a formula for disaster that nobody would like applied to their own sins.

      • Bruce

        I think that a truly merciful, yet just solution would be to retire the men who have offended or been negligent in the sex abuse crisis to cloistered monasteries. Once there, they would be taken care of by those committed to mercy and corporal works of mercy, but never heard from again. Kind of a “Catholic jail” for priests and religious who cannot minister any longer.

        I think that would be both merciful and just. It would also allow those who take care of them a fantastic path to heaven.

        • Subsistent

          Why isn’t anyone in these discussions referring — either to expand on it or to refute it — to the report of a public speech on February 20 by Abp. Miguel Maury Buendia at the University of San Pablo in Madrid, in which he indicated that Benedict XVI had in fact caused bishops to leave their posts — by requesting their resignations, and if they did not comply, by removing the bishops? And this at an average rate of a couple of dozen bishops a year, during his papacy? For an easy reference to that EWTN report, type “Madrid” in the “search” box at Deacon Greg Kandra’s Patheos blog The deacon’s Bench. This will take you to his Feb. 26 post titled “Nuncio: Benedict has ‘carried out a cleansing of the episcopate’”.

      • Kenneth

        The 99% of regular Catholics already have that “formula for disaster” applied to their own sins. Kathleen Quinlan, that Catholic school teacher in Ohio, was summarily fired for the heinous crime of having a kid. Not aborting a kid. Not buggering a kid, and certainly not aiding and abetting the buggering of kids over decades of organized criminal activities.

        She didn’t get to make a draw on the bottomless Federal Reserve sized store of “mercy” that we seem to owe guys like Law and Mahony. She didn’t get a sinecure (ie a ghost payroll job) in Rome with a gentleman’s salary and the benefit of a dozen years of deliberation and fret over whether it’s right to “lop off her head.” She had her head handed to her with the box to clear out her desk and essentially thrown into poverty or the edge of it with a kid who then had no medical benefits.

        So long as that sort of grotesque disparity in treatment persists, the bishops have zero credibility on moral issues and certainly have nothing to say about mercy or justice. The Ruling Class is the same wherever you go, in secular or religious circles. This pope has a chance to change that. I hope he exceeds the rather low bar you’ve set for him.

        • Mark Shea

          Kathleen Quinlan was fired by a parish school. I think they were wrong. Others disagree. That said, the Church remains the sacrament of mercy. Or should. Those eager for it to transform itself into an avenging angel should consider being careful of what they wish for.

          • Bruce

            May I ask why they were wrong?

            • Ted Seeber

              For the same reason Pope Francis brought the priests to task in Argentina last year. Clericalism is as much of a sin as liberalism.

      • Bob

        Please explain to me why there is no middle ground between the sacrament of mercy and bishops facing consequences for the neglect of children. Why can there be no merciful way of administering even a molecule of justice? Or how the idea of sending a Cardinal off to a monastery is tantamount to “lopping off heads.”
        It seems to me that dispatching Law to a monastery would be, if anything, and exceedingly merciful way of showing the victims of these crimes, and everyone else for that matter, that we finally have a Pope who actually gives a damn.

  • Alexander Anderson

    Oh how many of our modern problems could be sensibly addressed if only we brought back the notion of public penance? That should be exactly the fate of both Mahony and Law, as it would not only address the problem, it might actually instill some humility in those pitiful men.

  • LaVallette

    This Sunday’s gospel refers.

  • rakowskidp

    Does that mean that the papacy of Benedict XVI was also a disappointment? He didn’t banish Cdl. Law, either.

    Is it really that hard to wait more than 3 days to declare this papacy a disappointment (or much worse, if the RadTrads and freakish apparition chasers are to be believed)?

    • Bob

      “Does that mean that the papacy of Benedict XVI was also a disappointment? He didn’t banish Cdl. Law, either.”
      Yes, it does.

      • rakowskidp

        Gotta love my co-religionists’ talent for finding dark clouds behind every silver lining…

  • Will J

    Different people decide based on different factors. Fr. Z has already had a poll. The Pope certainly deserves time instead of rushing to judgement.

  • http://www.google.com Mark

    Of course it was. Why anyone believed it is beyond me. If you go to 1.45 in this video, you can see Pope Francis and Cardinal Law speaking very cordially on Friday:


    Looks like Law has something of some importance to try to communicate to him – interesting.

    So since he had this convo and didn’t seem to dis him..does that make Pope Francis a DISAPPOINTMENT?

    • Mark Shea

      Not to me.

  • RC

    The episode does teach us something: some stories about controversial figures appear to be based on nothing but the imaginations of people with an ax to grind.

    Already there are several rumors circulating on blogs, based on alleged private comments by the new pope or certain cardinals. I can only wonder how many such stories were invented out of thin air.

  • Jolene C

    And look whose doing the denying: Basilian Fr. Thomas Rosica, who has insinuated himself as ” assistant Vatican spokesperson.” He’s is the same lefty priest who has outright lied, lied and lied again about Canadian Sharelife donations going to good Catholic causes when it’s been shown time and time again they are going to pro-abort, pro gay, pro euthanasia anti-catholic NGOs. He is constantly covering for his leftist buddies in the Canadian church hierarchy has no credibility and the National Catholic Reporter has no credibility either. Also consider this: it is the Italian media which is reporting this and when was the last time they came to the defence of a pope and wrote a story about him tackling the scandals of the Church? I’ll take a wait and see on this one.