(No, not “Episcopal” as in ECUSA…they have enough problems. Small “e” on this one. )
Bishop Edward Braxton of Belleville has issued an apology for using funds designated for the missions and evangelization to purchase new furnishings for the chancery.
The LA Chancery has been sold.
Law prepares assiduously for meetings, these sources said, poring over preparatory materials and drawing on his network of international contacts. Since he’s based in Rome, he can participate on a more regular basis. (The normal pattern is for Roman cardinals who belong to a given dicastery to attend its regular business meetings — twice a month in the case of the Congregation for Bishops — while cardinals elsewhere sometimes come only for annual plenary assemblies.)
Yet no source could point to a single appointment since Law’s arrival in Rome in 2004, whether to a diocese in the United States or elsewhere, or in the Vatican itself, that seemed unambiguously to bear Law’s fingerprints.
On bishops’ appointments, these sources said, Law has earned a reputation for being “objective,” which, in Vatican argot, means that he does not appear to be angling to get his friends appointed. Rather, they say, he looks at the names recommended by the nuncio, or papal ambassador, and offers a candid assessment.
Law is one of four Americans who sit on the Congregation for Bishops, the others being Levada, Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, and Cardinal Francis Stafford of the Apostolic Penitentiary. By most accounts, Rigali and Levada exercise greater influence; both Archbishops Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., and Timothy Dolan of Milwaukee, for example, are former auxiliaries of Rigali from St. Louis, while Levada was instrumental in sending his friend and seminary classmate George Niederauer to San Francisco.
Vatican sources say that even absent the sex abuse crisis, Law’s influence would probably be diminished today because his longtime friend, Polish Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, is no longer the private secretary to the pope.
More broadly, church-watchers say, it’s difficult to find evidence that Law is using his role to shape events in the American church. At least in Boston, Cardinal Sean O’Malley has said publicly that he does not consult with Law prior to making decisions. Sources in the Boston chancery who spoke to NCR confirmed that assertion, saying they’ve never seen O’Malley contact Law prior to taking an important step.
Law’s friends insist he doesn’t aspire to wield long-distance control.
“He’s moved on,” one said. “He’s aware of what’s happening [in America], but he’s not trying to manipulate things.”
That, of course, is a friendly perspective. Critics often argue that whatever Law’s actual influence, the fact that he sits on the Congregation for Bishops, the Vatican office responsible not only for appointing bishops but also for correcting their misconduct, is testament to an enormous bit of unfinished business — the absence of any mechanism for holding bishops accountable for mismanagement in the same firm fashion that priests are now held accountable for abuse.
Oh, and then there’s the whole SLU basketball coach – Archbishop Burke business.
the absence of any mechanism for holding bishops accountable for mismanagement in the same firm fashion that priests are now held accountable for abuse
Law was removed from his position as Archbishop of Boston. How is that not accountability? I can see the critics have a point with Mahoney but maybe removing him would not satisfy anybody either.
I think there are many who think that Law should not have what they see as a cushy job in Rome, but should instead be working the mines in Sardinia.
News from the Eastern front:
The Eparchy of Passaic (of the Byzantine Catholic Church in America aka Ruthenian Church) is getting a new bishop on Tuesday.
Bishop William Skurla, Eparchy of Van Nuys, will be enthroned Tuesday at the Cathedral of St. Michael in Passaic. He will replace Bishop Andrew Pataki who is retiring.
Very Rev. Gerald Dino will be ordained Bishop of Van Nuys in March.
http://www.eparchy-of-van-nuys.org/2007-12-Dino.htm
Is there a story here? Skurla is in his 50’s, coming from the West Coast which has a small number of ethnic Carpatho-Rusyn’s. So maybe he’s coming from more of a mission territory, a church builder. The East Coast is basically the Old Country, with a dwindling ethnic membership. Will there be a push to grow the church beyond ethnic barriers?
Outgoing Pataki was recently the push behind an official engligh translation (complete w/ a standardization of the music, i.e., the Carpatho-Rusyn Byzantine chant) of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It’s now the official book of the Church, which is a sui juris church within the Catholic communion. The revised liturgy met with some grumbling, as all things liturgical do.
As a former leader in SNAP, I may qualify as “they” in the discussion about Law. It is not the cushy job in Rome that bothers me, it is the fact that he was not removed from his position as Archbishop of Boston but rather resigned. The article makes it more clear than ever that Pope JPII did not remove him, but left the decision to Law. It is that failure to provide accountability that sheds light on the problems that led to such horrific things being accepted for so long.
So the important thing about Cardinal Law, according to SNAP, was not that he stopped being archbishop of Boston, but the manner in which he stopped. Being granted the dignity of resigning in shame was not enough, he should have been made to be totally humiliated by being removed, completely discounting the good things that he did and focusing only on his (granted, grave) flaws.
That’s sort of like what Jesus did with the woman caught in adultery, no? After ensuring that she wouldn’t be stoned to death by the mob, he still let her know that she was a bad, bad person by casting a stone at her (which he, as a person without sin, would have been entitled to do). None of this forgiveness and dignity stuff – just retribution.
Do you seriously think that the Pope left the decision to Law? By permitting him the dignity of resigning, the Pope accomplished many things. He allayed the constant fears of the Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) regarding papal monarchialism, he provided some dignity to a man who had done a considerable amount of good for the Church (Anglican Use anyone?), he showed a possible way forward out of the scandal, which, unfortunately, more derelict bishops have not seen fit to utilize.
Removing an apostle from his seat is not something the Church does or should utilize lightly. It has grave consequences to our understanding of the nature of the Church. Even Judas was permitted to leave his post – until the end he was counted as one of the Twelve by our Lord.
Tim,
I don’t speak for SNAP, and left because they were not speaking for me. The issue is dealing with truth – reality – in a direct manner. Of course charity is called for in all things, always. But charity toward whom? Rome believed that charity to Cardinal Law was paramount, and of course it is. And it did accomplish some of the things you mention (dignity of prince of the church retained, papal monarchialism fears eased) – cleric-centered issues if there ever were. What about charity to the victims, and a direct solution rather than possible “way out” for more derelict bishops?
Jesus did tell us that it would be better to have a millstone around your neck at the bottom of the sea than cause scandal to a child. The church has a different consequence for those who do so – large sees.
Jesus also gave us the perfect model for how to treat someone who has been beaten up and left for dead. Notice – go up them – heal wounds – take them to a place of healing (on your own ass if necessary) – pay for the treatment – check in on them on your way back through town. I’ve yet to see that model followed.
And I don’t know what JPII did with that decision. Best as I can tell, from John Allen who is typically balanced and in the know, is that “The agenda was to discuss whether Law should step down, a choice left in his hands by Pope John Paul II. According to this official, Navarro-Valls, a Spaniard, initially tried to persuade Law to hang on …”
If that’s not the truth, that we all really know that he was asked (forced) to resign, then why will the church founded by “the way the truth and the life” refuse to say it? I understand reasons that business play these games – shareholder value and customer confidence and personal reputations may suffer if the ugly truth gets on CNN. But if the church is the repository of all truth that matters, and I believe she is, why so much trouble telling the truth as it relates to itself?