Two Cardinals, Two Pedophile Priest Protectors, Two Different MSM Reactions

Hint: the difference lies within the Cardinals' politics:

The same media outlets that report with outrage Cardinal Bernard Law's presence in Vatican City approach the equally disgraceful Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony with hushed attention. Among other staggering details of the abuse scandal under him is that Cardinal Mahony housed a pedophile priest in his own rectory, a move Law never even tried. Yet the mainstream media over the last few weeks have been treating Mahony as an unimpeachable source, using him as ecclesiastical cover for their now-rote liberal solutions to problems in the Church that he helped create.

Recall that Mahony, dipping into the faithful's pockets, hired Sitrick and Company (a public relations firm Enron used) to help him spin his complicity in the scandal. Not fooled, former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating, who investigated the scandal until Mahony and other bishops blackballed him into resigning, likened Mahony's conduct to "La Cosa Nostra."

The con job goes on. Indeed, Mahony looked downright excited at the chance to reappear on the scene as a voice for "change." Before the Pope had even died, Mahony rushed over to Rome on a first-class flight (it came out), so eager was he to wedge his finger into the Conclave pie as quickly as possible. Once in Vatican City, he immediately turned up on numerous talk shows to mourn a pope he never paid the slightest attention to on doctrinal matters. (Pope John Paul II would from time to time look over at Mahony and say "Hollywood," not exactly a compliment, though Mahony tells the story as if it were.) At one televised mass last week I noticed Mahony checking his watch: Where did he have to go? What, had Hardball called?

What's the difference between the fate of Cardinal Law and Cardinal Mahony? The Boston Globe. Mahony has Los Angeles Times religion reporter Larry Stammer in his pocket, as was revealed in 2002 by a leaked e-mail from the Los Angeles chancery in which Mahony promised a colleague that "Larry Stammer" would whip up a positive story for them ("he stands ready to help if we have a story we want to get out," the e-mail said). Unlike Law who had serious reporters on his heels, Mahony has long benefited from the somnolent coverage of West Coast media liberals willing to excuse his protection of pedophiles in gratitude for his political and doctrinal liberalism.

Get it?

If you're a liberal theologian willing to harshly criticize the teaching of the Catholic Church, you're covered under the MSM's Endangered Liberals Act. If you're a (relatively) conservative theologian not known for attacking your church, you're the spawn of Satan.

Fact is, the Catholic Church and these two cardinals have acted disgracefully and betrayed the trust of their flock by not defrocking pedophile priests and taking swift and stern action to ensure such priests do not remain within the fold of the church.

So why does the MSM view one as a criminal and the other as a saint?