THE LEGISLATURE has taken an anti-Catholic stance on legislation before. Most politicians in the House and Senate — while Catholic — also favor the death penalty and abortion rights. Catholic pols, in other words, don’t necessarily fall lock-step into place behind the Church’s public-policy agenda. Says State Representative Eugene O’Flaherty (D-Charlestown), a devout Catholic who voted against the contraceptives-coverage bill last week, "I have never deferred to the cardinal on how he says Catholics should vote on issues. I listen to everybody."

Such sentiments, of course, speak to the fact that the archdiocese cannot boast the kind of political clout that it had, say, 40 years ago — when Richard Cardinal Cushing could have squelched an offensive piece of legislation with just one phone call or private meeting. Unlike insurance and other business interests, the current archdiocese, despite its consistent presence on Beacon Hill, does not rank among the top influential institutions in state politics. In short, it’s not as big a deal as it once was for a Catholic legislator to come out in opposition to Law.

At the same time, though, the Catholic Church remains the most influential religious organization at the State House. If the Church opposes something, it makes things far more difficult for that something to succeed. After all, the contraceptives-coverage battle did drag on for five years; the 2000 bill creating buffer zones around abortion clinics was stymied in the House for two sessions, even though, like the contraceptives-coverage bill, it had passed the Senate. And Law still wields power. He continues to testify at legislative hearings on such issues as capital punishment, abortion, and stem-cell research — causes that are the hallmark of the political Church. And his opinions still weigh heavily in the minds of those who are on the fence about these controversial issues. Law’s positions, says BC’s O’Connor, "are so well-known and unequivocal. That fact is big for Catholic legislators."

Whether the Geoghan scandal’s immediate and crippling effect on Law and the archdiocese will affect the outcome of other public-policy issues remains an open question. Clearly, the cardinal’s move last week to reveal dozens of past cases of clergy sexual abuse represented an attempt to mend fences with the public and, more important, Catholic politicians. But for some, even this action cannot erase the damage that’s been done. "I just see [Law] as having no credibility at all," says Charles Manning, a Republican consultant who is Catholic. "If you have no credibility, you have no political clout. Of course that would carry over into everything else." Particularly among the electorate, Law may have a tough time persuading people to follow the Church’s politics. It’s hard for someone who has caused so much harm to children and families to preach values. Explains Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic consultant and a practicing Catholic, "In light of this scandal, Law’s political voice will be substantially diminished."

Still, it may be too early to pinpoint the lasting implications of the Geoghan scandal on the archdiocese’s political influence. For one thing, legislators who have followed the Church’s direction on issues such as capital punishment and abortion probably won’t change their positions simply because they have been disappointed by the way Church officials have dealt with pedophile priests. Such stances, after all, come down to moral values, and their dissatisfaction with the archdiocese flows from the flaws of individuals, not the tenets of Catholicism. Says Democratic consultant Michael Goldman, "The failures of men are just that. People can judge this in a context that allows them to agree with the Church when they think it’s morally right."

But that isn’t to say that the Geoghan incident doesn’t signal early signs of a breakdown between the archdiocese and the legislature. Its shattering effect could prompt legislators to think twice about measures that aren’t rooted in religious doctrine — like contraceptives coverage, which amounts to an insurance issue, and mandating that clergy members report child abuse, which amounts to a public-safety issue. To gauge the political ramifications of the Geoghan story, one need look no further than the pending domestic-partnership-benefits bill, which is currently languishing in a House committee after passing the Senate for the third time. To date, the Church has voiced its unwavering opposition to the legislation, which would provide health benefits to partners of openly gay municipal employees. State House insiders have attributed the bill’s repeated House failures to Finneran, who is a well-known Church ally. As one House member who backs domestic-partnership benefits points out, "There are only a few institutions the Speaker listens to closely. The first is the Boston archdiocese."

Throughout the next year, though, these dynamics could change. The archdiocese could withdraw from this legislative battle, which offers its critics yet another reason to blast the Church. Or the Speaker could bring the measure to the House floor for debate, which would represent a slap against the Church. "Any movement on the domestic-partnership front will be a test of the cardinal’s clout in the long run," notes State Representative Byron Rushing (D–South End), who supports the bill. "It would tell me that legislators have really believed in this issue. Now, for some reason, they feel free to cross the Church."

Of course, it’s not unfathomable that Law could restore his tainted image. No one could have predicted last year that Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, would end his mayoral tenure on top of the world. Just 12 months earlier, as his marital woes and indiscretions became fodder for Saturday Night Live, Giuliani seemed like a political has-been. Yet in December 2001, he became Time magazine’s Person of the Year by virtue of his level-headed response to the terrorist attack on September 11.

Likewise, some State House insiders — particularly Catholic legislators — have adopted a wait-and-see attitude when it comes to Law’s political future. They have heard the apologies. They have welcomed the reforms. For them, the long-term damage this scandal has caused Law and the Church will depend on how the cardinal continues to address the matter. Will he follow through with his newly announced policy changes on clergy sexual misconduct? Or will the proclamations amount to mere talk? Representative Fitzgerald echoes the sentiments of many Catholic politicians when he explains that he and his colleagues have decided to "see where this scandal goes." Though he recognizes the cardinal "has to make some soul-searching decisions," Fitzgerald stands ready to back Law: "I will support him if he decides to stay."

In the end, given the increasingly damning media coverage, the odds are stacked against the cardinal. For all the talk among Catholic politicians about forgiveness, they have yet to shake the sense of betrayal that comes from discovering that their spiritual leader has sinned against their communities. They have yet to end the debate over his fate. Their trust in him and in the archdiocese, says State Representative Martin Walsh (D-Dorchester), "has been breached. If I keep picking up the paper and reading about other priests for the next three weeks — that’s a real problem."

Kristen Lombardi can be reached at klombardi[a]phx.com

Should the cardinal resign? Respond here in the Phoenix Forum.