Jerry Slevin, a “retired Catholic and Harvard schooled international lawyer” asks the question and offers a very plausible explanation.
In his blog http://christiancatholicism.com/ Slevin explains it this way:
Pope Benedict XVI for the first time publicly shamed a voting Cardinal, Mahony of Los Angeles. The Pope’s pawn, Archbishop Gomez, publicly referred to Mahony’s child abuse cover-up conduct as ‘evil.’ This unprecedented and selective public papal condemnation, in my view as an experienced retired lawyer, significantly increases the risk for Mahony that he will yet still be criminally prosecuted, possibly for obstruction of justice or perjury. Prosecutors now have a papal blessing to go after Mahony. Yet the Pope has also just permitted Ireland’s voting Cardinal Brady to exit gracefully, without papal condemnation. Brady was reportedly involved in priest abuse cover-ups at least as ‘evil’ as Mahony. Why the different treatment for two Cardinals?
The likeliest explanation is current papal election politics. Conservative Cardinals in the Vatican clique, including American ones like Burke, Law, Stafford and Rigali, and their right-wing U.S. Republican contributors, have for years targeted Mahony, often an ally of U.S. Democratic political leaders, as an obstacle to the Vatican clique’s efforts to maintain Vatican domination of the Catholic Church worldwide, through groups like Opus Dei that Gomez and convicted criminal Bishop Finn are members of. Brady, on the other hand, supports domination by the Vatican clique, as evidenced by his acquiescence in the current unchallenged attack on one of Brady’s most popular priests, Fr. Tony Flannery, by the Pope’s new German Inquisitor. Flannery’s brother is a top ally to Prime Minister Enda Kenny, who has strongly opposed papal domination in Ireland.
The signal is clear. The Vatican is prepared, it appears, to use selectively the criminal prosecution risks inherent in the worldwide abuse scandal to intimidate voting Cardinals……
The pope did not “shame Cardinal Mahony,” Gomez did. And according to John L. Allen Jr., it would seem the Vatican was not even consulted.
“Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesperson, told NCR that although he has received several requests for comment from news agencies, there are no plans at this time to issue a statement. Among other things, he said, the Vatican needs time ‘to better understand the situation.'” http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/no-comment-vatican-mahony
Just passing on Slevin’s thoughts……
This seems a logical scenario to me. Would you agree?
>________________________________ > From: Another Voice >To: collinspw@yahoo.com >Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 4:37 PM >Subject: [New post] Why Did the Pope Shame Cardinal Mahony, But Not Ireland’s Cardinal Brady? > > > WordPress.com >John W. Greenleaf posted: “Jerry Slevin, a “retired Catholic and Harvard schooled international lawyer” asks the question and offers a very plausible explanation. In his blog http://christiancatholicism.com/ Slevin explains it this way: Pope Benedict XVI for the first time pub” >
May the Holy Spirit rise above these politics. another sign that th post Vatican Ii crowd is more interested in self than the Holt Spirit.
Jerry knows the power politics of the hierarchy well. He is right to point out how unusual it was for Gomez to publically dicipline Mahony and that Gomez would not have done so without Vatican approval.
I think you are absolutely correct here……
John W Greenleaf
Email: jwgreenleaf@gmail.com Website: http://anothervoice-greenleaf.org/