Cardinal Law and Common Sense

American victims of priest sexual abuse are planning to protest Cardinal Law's celebration of a mass honoring John Paul II. If I were in Rome, I think I'd be inclined to join them, as I have not been made aware of any persuasive explanation for the prominent role given to Law. I've heard talk of protocol, but if the Vatican could do away with the three hammer strikes to the forehead as the means by which to confirm a pope's death, couldn't the standard operating procedures have been altered just a bit in this context as well?

Rob

UPDATE: Over at The Seventh Age, Jason Adkins responds to my question:

[M]aybe allowing (and even compelling) Bernard Law to preach at one of these Masses may be of tremendous service to a Church that could learn from the mistakes of its past. Perhaps putting someone like Law in front of the cardinals could be a powerful lesson about what can happen when they are careless in the exercise of their authority, as well as the spiritual consequences that may ensue. It gives him the opportunity to share his prayerful reflections over the past couple of years since his exile in Rome with the rest of the College of Cardinals. Perhaps he has something powerful to teach and preach to his colleagues. I'm willling to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that the other cardinals may feel the same way. He has certainly been shamed and chastened and has had to think alot about his mistakes. This could be a real positive for the Church.

The reason I think this is a possibility is because by all accounts, Bernard Law is a very good man with an amazing record of pastoral accomplishment, commitment to justice, and personal humility who happened to both make some gross errors in judgment as well as be in the wrong place at the wrong time. To impart to him sheer evil, malfeasance and bad faith is just plain calumny and fails to deal with the complexity of the sex abuse crisis. No doubt that he feels miserable and truly sorry for everything that happened. But perhaps he was mired in a Church culture that relied on "experts" and other specialists who believed with a little treatment or a change of scenery, these problem priests would be cured. Acting in the context of the post-conciliar era and its stupid deference to "science" and experts in all fields from liturgy to psychology and pastoral care, and relying on the fads and trends of the time out of a supposed duty to empower the laity and the wisdom of the new scientist/psychologist priests of the modern world, the Church mired itself in a huge crisis. But to have gone against the grain and resisted this at the time would have been nothing short of heresy. Most of the same activists that are championing reform in the wake of the abuse crisis, are the same that sought and built a church culture that relied on the wisdom of the age rather than ageless wisdom.

So my point is, let's all step back, take a deep breath, and maybe consider that this might be a positive moment for the Church. The way I look at it is this has to be a profoundly penitential moment for Law. Having the responsibility of preaching to all of the cardinals after screwing up and dragging the Church through as much mud as it was because of his mistakes can be nothing but chastening. I suspect he will approach this opportunity with much humility, and serve as a very important cautionary tale as the cardinal electors ponder the successor of John Paul the Great.

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of Jason's response (although I don't see how resisting the mindset that led to the sex abuse crisis would have been "nothing short of heresy"), and I hope, like Jason, that Cardinal Law uses the opportunity to impart his hard-earned lessons to his colleagues.  But is this the most appropriate vehicle for those lessons to be imparted?  Whether it's accurate or not, the general perception is that it is a huge honor to celebrate any of the nine masses.  Coupled with the widespread belief that the Vatican did not treat the abuse crisis as seriously as it should have, the pedagogical value of Law's role is not the lasting impression to emerge from this episode.  This is not to suggest that Law is evil, but simply that he showed a profound lack of judgment -- a lack of judgment that facilitated unspeakable crimes.  Placing him in this role so soon after the scandal seems misguided.  By way of clumsy analogy, Ken Lay may have learned a lot from the demise of Enron, and his industry colleagues may stand to gain much from his newfound wisdom and humility.  But if Lay has something to teach executives, it should be as a straightforward lecture stripped of pretense and the trappings of honor, not as the keynote address at a Chamber of Commerce awards banquet. 

Rob