[maryz]

I think he had a lot of dirt on higher-ups and threatened to spill the beans

You may be right -- there is, of course, the apparent "attempted blackmail" of Cardinal Medeiros (which Medeiros did not seem to take seriously, at least judging from the copy of an "unsent" letter I recall) and Shanley refers somewhere to his own molestation at the hands of an unnamed "predecessor" Cardinal.

The Boston Globe seems to have removed the documents it got under FOIA from its website; it would have been handy to be able to refer to them.

I wonder if the press has access to Shanley in prison. I can't imagine they wouldn't want it and try for it. I don't know the laws -- maybe the press can't have access to prisoners until after conviction.

[ThomasMore]

maybe the press can't have access to prisoners until after conviction.

I believe that is the case!

[american colleen]

The Boston Globe seems to have removed the documents it got under FOIA from its website; it would have been handy to be able to refer to them.

That's because The Globe is pushing the book that they have written on the subject.

[american colleen]

I read this story in the Pilot last month. From the documents available (some The Globe has removed from their website), it does almost seem like the sin of Cardinal Law is a sin of omission. Cardinal Law seems to have been a delegator and trusted those under him to handle priestly transfers and priestly problems. It does appear to me that Bishop McCormack had the greatest role in facilitating Shanley's reign of terror and helping him was Bishop Robert Banks. Interestingly, McCormack graduated seminary with Shanley in 1960. I believe Geoghan was in that class or the one behind it.

In the Geoghan case, the thing that bothers me is the letter that Cardinal Law wrote to Geoghan praising him on his many years of dedicated service to the Church. That is the one thing I cannot get over.