Interestingly enough, though, a reader informed me that he attempted several times to leave the following comment at that site:
I am disappointed in your lack of due diligence in adequately researching for this story.
You wrote, "Canon law says only the bishop of a diocese - in this case Murphy-O'Connor - can invite another bishop to celebrate Mass at a church in his diocese." Nowhere does canon law "say" this anywhere.
To the contrary, canon 390 of the Code of Canon Law states that outside of his diocese, a bishop can celebrate a pontifical rite with only the presumed consent of the local bishop, in this case, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor. Express consent is not required.
The Latin Mass Society was perfectly reasonable in presuming that a Prefect of a Vatican Dicastery was welcome, as a representative of the Roman Pontiff, to celebrate Mass in the Cathedral of Westminster.
Next time, please do your homework. Don't state a factually verifiable error as truth, which is what you did. Anything less is indicative of bias on your part as a journalist.
The problem is that the comment shows as having been posted, yet only on the computer of the person who posts it. In other words, each time the comment is posted, the person posting it sees it--as though it were posted, on his own screen-- but if he goes to another computer it does not appear. This happened to my reader several times. I tried posting the same comment, too, and got the same result. Weird, isn't it?
At the moment, only one comment appears following the post:
I understand that the Cardinal has the authority to do this. However, what is he trying to accomplish?
The interesting thing is that this comment supports the idea that the Cardinal had the authority under Canon law. It questions the prudence of the decision, but it supports the authority all the same.
Perhaps we should assume this is a temporary glitch in the Post-Dispatch's comments area and that this will be soon corrected. Weird.