Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Cardinal Law

Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation for Cardinal Law's involvement in yesterday's Mass at St. Peter's?

This explanation is just not sufficient for me:
Cardinal Law resigned as archbishop of Boston in December 2002, after nearly a year of devastating disclosures about priests accused of sexual abuse whom he had permitted to remain in parish work. After a year of insisting that resigning was not an option, he stepped down soon after a judge unsealed church records in a court case, including correspondence showing that the cardinal wrote letters praising priests he knew were pedophiles.

The cardinal initially retreated to a convent in Maryland, but he was appointed 11 months ago to become the archpriest of one of Rome's four most prestigious churches, the Basilica of St. Mary Major.

Vatican officials said Cardinal Law was among the prelates chosen to preside over nine days of Masses for John Paul because it is a custom for the archpriest of his basilica to do so.
Some customs should be ignored, particularly when it looks like you're thumbing your nose at the victims of a crime you played a part in. Everything that the last two weeks have been about has been tainted for me and for many others in the US. Why?