A sentiment echoed yesterday by Raymond Arroyo and Father Neuhaus on EWTN.
I thought it ill-considered at the time -- seriously stupid for Catholic journalists presenting themselves to the world as Vaticanisti. "The Vatican's decision"? Who would that be? The pope is dead. All curial appointment are expired. No one at the Vatican is making decisions except about matters where they have an exclusive prerogative. Cardinal Ratzinger's funeral Mass was celebrated in Latin, presumably because it was his Mass and he wanted it that way. Similarly, Cardinal Law is Archpriest of his basilica and until there's a new pope, he answers to no one. Should he have stepped aside in the interest of humility and good taste? Sure, but if he had humility and good taste he wouldn't have accepted the position at St. Mary Major in the first place.
>>"The Vatican's decision to have Law celebrate the Mass was inappropriate."<<
I'm sorry, but that's just lame talk. He is celebrating the mess because he is the Archpriest of St. Mary Major, and as such, his appointment to that post was an action that carried with it the known fact that he would be the one to conduct the liturgical rites when this event comes up. There are other things for him to do there, too. Are those things also "inappropriate?"
This is just one dot on the radar screen.
Appointments have consequences. Rule changes effect years of fallout. Tampering with liturgical traditions sets a course for sometimes uncharted territory. Tampering with dogma destroys the Faith.
The inappropriate thing was to give Law ANY position of authority or influence. He should have been sent off to a remote and secure monastery to do penance in SILENCE for the rest of his days, if the salvation of his soul (and the preservation of the Faith) was of any concern.
In retrospect, this whole affair carries with it the pallid odium of "grave" effect.
How much more of its ilk will we be subject to, is the question.