Double standard?

Why is the Scotsman so determined to be negative to the memory of the deceased Cardinal Keith O’brien? First of all, the initial news of his death was relegated to Page 5, with almost every reference to him preceded by his admission of culpability, for which he received no admiration. Other, equally senior priests, have offended and been quietly relocated with never a stain against their names, so why the spite against him?

The contrast between the reporting of his death and the obituary of the murderous Winnie Mandela has been frightening. Mrs Mandela blamed apartheid for her viciousness and her willingness to torture and burn to death her opponents, but there were many victims of apartheid, black and white, who would never have dreamed of descending to such brutality. Why, in your obituary, was little made of her willing participation in the torture and slaughter of a young black boy?

By contrast, in your 7 April reporting of the funeral of Cardinal O’brien, every paragraph began with “shamed” or “disgraced”, as if his whole life had been bad. Twice, in a short article of about 60 words, was he described as “disgraced”. I began to think I was reading the obituary of a monster, and not the lively charismatic priest everyone knew.

Of course I do not condone what he did (whatever it was) but I admire his readiness to confess and take his punishment.

VIVIENNE STIRLING Craigs Grove, Edinburgh