The resignation of Cardinal O’Brien as Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, within a month of the date on which his formal resignation would normally have taken effect, is both shocking and sad, for he was a well-known and well-liked figure within the Catholic Church in Scotland, in Britain, and more widely; and within Scotland he had good relations with other churches and faiths, and with civil and political society.
Given the nature of the accusations, however, and the publication of them over the weekend, ahead of the formal abdication of Pope Benedict later in the week, it is unsurprising that he has taken the decision to resign. The Scottish Catholic Church has a good reputation in Rome for clear and confident leadership, and the Pope particularly relished the Scottish part of his visit to the UK, and appreciated the work done by Cardinal O’Brien and his fellow bishops.
With that in mind, however, the Cardinal could not but be mindful of the problems that would follow given the inevitable press interest created by the accusations, and he would not want that burden to fall upon the Church and the Pope at what is obviously a critical moment in the life of the Roman Catholic community.
Additionally he continues to suffer ill-health and had long ago indicated to Rome that he wished to be relieved of his responsibilities as soon as possible following the formal submission of his resignation. He could not then have expected either the Pope’s own resignation and ensuing conclave, and certainly not the submission of these accusations. In the event he has ended his tenure as Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh as he served the office, in the interests of the Church.
February 25th, 2013 | 5:20 pm
God bless him and one is innocent until proven guilty. And, why do accusations from 33 years ago just happen to come up two weeks before the enclave?
February 25th, 2013 | 6:49 pm
Given the nature of the accusations, however, and the publication of them over the weekend, ahead of the formal abdication of Pope Benedict later in the week, it is unsurprising that he has taken the decision to resign.
Cardinal O’Brien did not resign. He was told to go.
February 25th, 2013 | 7:05 pm
According to the New York Times, the accusations were made before the pope announced he was resigning.
That does not mean, of course, that they weren’t deliberately leaked to the press by people who did not want to see Cardinal O’Brien vote for the next pope, but I doubt that such allegations would have remained secret even if Benedict had not announced his resignation.
February 25th, 2013 | 7:24 pm
David, if you want to be really, really precise, he did resign, but the pope declared that his resignation take effect early. Read the final sentence of your quotation again.
February 26th, 2013 | 10:47 am
David, if you want to be really, really precise, he did resign, but the pope declared that his resignation take effect early.
pgk,
I agree. Cardinal O’Brien had already submitted his resignation. The pope just moved the date. But John Haldane’s post says: “Given the nature of the accusations, however, and the publication of them over the weekend, ahead of the formal abdication of Pope Benedict later in the week, it is unsurprising that he [O’Brien] has taken the decision to resign. But he had already tendered his resignation. He was just waiting for the pope to accept it.
Now, to be fair to Cardinal O’Brien, all we have is allegations against him, and we have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty that they are true. But it seemed to me John Haldane was giving Cardinal O’Brien credit for moving the effective date of his resignation and not attending the conclave. And it appears that the pope is the one who made the decision.
February 26th, 2013 | 11:16 am
It kind of surprises me to see several “supportive” articles for Cardinal O’Brien on First Things. I can understand folks feeling regret over the loss of a man who was apparently a staunch supporter of faith in the UK’s public square.
But it is important to point out, from a Christian viewpoint, that these were reprehensible acts – pressuring young men under his authority to engage in sodomy. I understand that they happened thirty-plus years ago. But it is hard not to conclude that his moral legacy is at the very least very badly tarnished, if not destroyed, if the allegations turn out to be true.
I think it is important to make this distinction. One who publicly stands on the side of traditional values is not always, in the end, a friend of the Church and her mission. We must forgive Cardinal O’Brien as a man, but that does not mean that we should endorse his decision to stay in a position, where he knew that if his actions had come to light he would be causing great harm to the Church.
February 26th, 2013 | 12:07 pm
AF Zamarro,
Of course, we don’t know the allegations are true.
February 26th, 2013 | 11:29 pm
But, if the allegations are true then those Priests who were adults at the time they were engaged in sexual activity with other men should be investigated. Are they still engaging in sexual activity with other men? This needs to be brought out into the open and dealt with or we will have another scandal wounding the Church deeply and causing people to lose their faith.
March 6th, 2013 | 11:04 pm
In another article I read that the former priest had said that he did not leave because he wanted to marry. He said that he left because, once Fr. O’Brien became an Archbishop, he knew that the Archbishop would always have power over him.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact