Replies

Just for the record - the fox news story is misleading. See Fr. Johansen's blog below

Subject: Cardinal Law's New Job

Cardinal Law

Cardinal Law Gets "Promoted"

Or so some would think, based on this article which proclaims that Cardinal
Law has been made "head" of Saint Mary Major Basilica in Rome.

Now that article is an object lesson in lazy/bad journalism. Upon reading it,
you might be led to think that Cardinal Law is "running" or "in charge of
administration" of the basilica.

Well, he's not. He's been given the honorary title of "archpriest". It's an
obsolete honorific going back to the Middle Ages, when cathedrals had
"chapters" that made major decisions and wielded considerable power. They don't and
they haven't anymore.

All the title "archpriest" gives him is the right (if he so chooses) to sit
all dressed up in choro at major events.

Based on the term "position", and the comment of Mitchell Garabedian that the
"position" is "comfortable", you might think this job is a well-paid
sinecure.

In fact, some people came to that conclusion, for in the comments boxes on
Amy Welborn's and Mark Shea's blogs, people got upset that Law was being given a
"sinecure".

Now, the word "sinecure" comes from the Latin sine cura, meaning "without
care". The term denotes a position from which one derives an income, but having
no real responsibilities.

In fact, based on some of the comments, it seemed to me that some people
imagine that this appointment will allow Law to "hang out" in Rome, where he will
be wined and dined and live in a luxurious palazzo, while being waited on by
nubian chamberlains in a modern-day recreation of the Borgia Papal Court.

That would make an entertaining scene in a movie, but it's not reality.

Cardinal Law isn't being given "a cushy job at the Vatican". It's not even a
job, much less at the Vatican. For being an archpriest of the basilica, Cdl.
Law will receive precisely no (that's $0.00) remuneration. It's not a real job.
He will receive no stipend, salary, or honorarium of any kind (no archpriest
of a Roman basilica does, as an archpriest per se) from the basilica.

But, as cardinal archpriest of the Roman basilica, he will be expected to give
substantially to the Basilica, and raise money for its maintenance and
support. So this move will likely cost the cardinal.

So whatever this appointment is, it's not a sinecure. It gives him no income,
and certianly no power. As a lowly parochial vicar of my parish, I have more
power than Cardinal Law does as Archpriest of St. Mary Major.

Furthermore, as an archpriest of the basilica he has no regular duties or
responsibilities. He will not be given a place to live there, nor is it customary
for the cardinal archpriests of Roman basilicas to reside in Rome, unless
they also have full-time Vatican appointments - which Law has not been given. It
is unlikely that Law will live in Rome as a result of this appointment, as
he'd be on his own to support himself there. And Rome is an expensive place to
live (I know, as I've lived there). So wipe away any images of Law lolling about
in Rome in some luxurious palazzo enjoying his "sinecure".

He won't be hanging around in the basilica. Given that cardinal archpriests
of Roman basilicas aren't provided with lodging, receive no remuneration, and
that Law would have no means of support in Rome, that's extremely unlikely. If
he were to "hang around" in Rome in the manner some envision, he'd almost
certainly make a pest of himself and quietly be told to go find something to do.
Because the bishop(s) who really run Santa Maria Maggiore won't stand for some
nosy American interloper to be underfoot for very long.

As I've written in those comment boxes, I do think this was a dumb move on
Rome's part. If anyone in Rome had bothered to consult with me (not that they
should) or any other moderately culture-savvy American, we might have said:

Your Excellencies, please do not give Cardinal Law an honorary appointment of
any kind, not even the most trivial. Do not make him even the "Prefect of
Papal Stamp-Licking". Because such a move will be misunderstood by many
Americans, even Catholics. The headlines will read "Cardinal Who Shuffled Abusers Given
Top Vatican Post", or "Law Given Cushy Roman Job" even "Protector of
Pedophile Priests Promoted". Regardless of what you may intend, regardless of what
subtle statement you are making in Romanitas, you will be perceived as giving
Cardinal Law, and everything he did, the Papal Seal of Approval. Cardinal Law is,
whether deservedly or not, perhaps only slightly less reviled than the
priest-abusers themselves. He has become a symbol, a talisman of evil. American
Catholics are still largely incapable of seeing how they are complicit in creating
the environment of moral laissez-faire which gave rise to the Shanley's and
the Cardinals who protected them, so they have not yet moved from blame to
self-examination. Cardinal Law and his episcopal brethren are largely responsible
for that as well. This is the reality which you must face and take into
account for at least the next decade. Cardinal Law and those like him must pay a
price for their failure to exercise their office, and it must be clear to all
that they are paying a price. Giving Cardinal Law any kind of appointment sends
the opposite message.
I'd like to think that someone would say that to the Holy Father and the
Curia. But in spite of the apprearance of this move, I think it's an example of
Vatican un-savvyness, and little else. Cardinal Law has been "put on the shelf"
in a pretty typically Roman way.

From Fr., Rob Johansen