As I was browsing this morning, with Barona's exhortations fresh in my ear, I happened upon Vox's posting of an Italian article regarding Cardinal Law and Pope Francis. Google translations are difficult at best so I went searching for some other coverage. I was rather surprised to find two entirely different takes on the same incident. The Telegraph reported
The Vatican confirmed that he had "discreetly" met the Cardinal, but campaigners for the abuse victims described the fact that the meeting happened as "rubbing salt into still festering wounds".David Clohessy, based in Rome for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said: "Tragically, it took Pope Francis only a matter of hours before he dashed the hopes of abuse survivors by visiting the most discredited US prelate, Cardinal Bernard Law." He added: "He must have known the hurt that he would cause to already wounded victims and still disillusioned Catholics by this insensitive act."
The Mail reported on the same incident but with a completely different take on it.
Though now retired, the cardinal still enjoys a grace and favour apartment in the cathedral complex. So hearing that the new Pope was offering prayers at the very same church, it seems he couldn’t resist a discreet peak. But when Pope Francis recognised him, he immediately ordered that Law be removed, according to Italian media reports. He went on to command: ‘He is not to come to this church any more.’ One of the new Pope’s first acts will be to arrange new ‘cloistered’ accommodation for the disgraced cardinal, the Italian daily, Il Fatto Quotidiano, reported. The firm stance was greeted with cautious enthusiasm by campaigners for victims of sexual abuse. David Clohessey of Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests (SNAP) said: ‘If he is permanently banned we are slightly encouraged.
In the Telegraph article, Pope Francis is criticized by a SNAP representative for meeting with Cardinal Law and dashing the hopes of abuse survivors. In the Mail article Pope Francis is stating that Cardinal Law is to be removed from his residence at the basilica. Moreover the representative of SNAP is encouraged. I have to wonder whether these two news sources are reporting on the same incident. The quotes from David Clohessey are completely contradictory and it seems that the Telegraph reporter had only presented part of the story before eliciting a reaction.
In my humble opinion, the Telegraph article is completely biased and incomplete. You should go over to the Mail article and have a look. Aside from everything else, it has a pile of really good candid photos.