But I was intrigued, since Cardinal Law was listed as another moneyman. I asked my informant on matters Law if he knew where the money came from. He answered, "That would be an unknown for me. I do know Law was a fundraising specialist with worldwide ties. I would see Opus Dei networks in there somewhere, before the fall of their Banco Santander. Seems I heard that Domino's Pizza magnate was at Law's beck and call for funding. I am sure that Law was at work in big ways once he was catapaulted to Rome."
Well, I'm coming to the view that John Paul II accomplished one or two big things -- with Reagan, he was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union without direct armed confrontation, and secondarily, he pushed back on "liberation theology" and a certain degree of US clerical corruption, exemplified by Fr Robert Drinan. You probably can't expect much more from a single human.
But his inaction over Maciel was a definite bad call. Per Wikipedia,
In 1997, a group of nine men went public with accusations that they had been abused as youths and young men by Maciel while studying under him in Spain and Rome in the 1940s and 1950s. The group, which included respectable academics and former priests, lodged formal charges at the Vatican in 1998. They were told the following year, in 1999, that the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, was not moving forward with a direct prosecution. It is not publicly known if this decision was made by Pope John Paul II or Cardinal Ratzinger himself.Ratzinger/Benedict did move against Maciel by 2005/6, probably at a time when John Paul was infirm.
The amount of money Opus Dei was able to send to Rome is generally regarded as the source of the movement's favor under John Paul II, including its designation as a personal prelature. While Opus Dei has been allied with several cardinals, my informant thinks Law, potentially through William Stetson or other associates, may have been able to take credit for Opus Dei money coming to Rome.
My own view is that the Pastoral Provision was a bad call by John Paul, though a minor one; on the other hand, for him to put the brakes on Anglicanorum coetibus in 1993 was better. For Benedict to issue it was a bigger mistake, though I'm increasingly convinced that his retirement makes everything else fade into inconsequence.
However, financial scandal could be another path to driving reform in the Church. I'm reminded of the 1992 United Way scandal:
William Aramony served for 22 years as president and CEO of United Way of America (UWA), the umbrella group for thousands of local United Way organizations that fund social and human service projects nationwide. In 1992, Aramony resigned amidst allegations that he siphoned money from UWA through spin-off companies he helped to create. . . . In 1995, Aramony and two conspirators, Thomas Merlo and Stephen Paulachak, were convicted of defrauding UWA. . . .It seems to me that the mixture of sexual and financial impropriety is also a pattern in the current crisis, and it's likely that McCarrick and others misappropriated funds for their own amorous pursuits. This angle hasn't been followed as fully as it should be. Whether taking away the Church's tax exempt status is only a remote possibility, it's likely that pursuing individual dioceses for fraud or violation of specific IRS regulations is a very productive course.For instance, he used UWA cash to woo a girl, Lori Villasor, who was only 17 years old when they began dating; Aramony was 59. He met Villasor while dating her slightly older sister. Both young women were added to UWA's payroll. For his notoriously young girlfriend, Aramony spent $450,000 of the charity's money to purchase and lavishly furnish a New York condo; $78,000 to chauffeur her around New York City; and $4,800 to renovate her home in Florida. The couple vacationed in Egypt, London, Las Vegas, and Atlantic City.
