CHURCH IN CRISIS
Unprecedented turmoil as Cardinal O’Brien resigns after allegations
THE Catholic Church in Scotland has been thrown into an unprecedented crisis following the accelerated resignation of its most senior cleric in the face of allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards young priests.
Cardinal Keith O’Brien had been due to formally submit his resignation in three weeks, but he has stood down with immediate effect after weekend revelations that he was being investigated over the claims, which date back 30 years and relate to three priests and a former priest.
The 74-year-old will also not attend the conclave to choose the successor to Pope Benedict, who steps down on Thursday, a move that leaves the Catholic Church in the UK with no vote in the election.
Cardinal O’Brien, whose resignation had to be accepted by the Pope, said: “The Holy Father has now decided that my resignation will take effect today.
“I do not wish media attention in Rome to be focused on me – but rather on Pope Benedict XVI and on his successor.”
The Cardinal had denied the allegations on Sunday, when he also said he was taking legal advice.
He added yesterday: “Looking back over my years of ministry: For any good I have been able to do, I thank God. For any failures, I apologise to all whom I have offended.”
Meanwhile, it emerged he was previously at the centre of a row over the cover-up of evidence that a priest had sexually abused teenage boys.
As Archbishop in the early 1990s, Cardinal O’Brien arranged £42,000 compensation for one of the victims of Father Desmond Lynagh. Police were not originally informed but he was later jailed for three years in 1996.
Lynagh, 55, had admitted shameless and indecent conduct towards two youths in the mid-1970s, while teaching at the Church’s then Scottish national training college, Blairs College, near Aberdeen.
One leading authority on the Church described “the gravest single public crisis to hit the Catholic Church in Scotland since the Reformation”, while other influential members of the Catholic laity have said the shock timing of the resignation should provide an opportunity to change the autocratic culture of the Church north of the Border.
It is unclear whether the Vatican will appoint another cardinal to Scotland in the short to medium term, while Cardinal O’Brien’s earlier-than-expected resignation leaves half of all Scottish dioceses requiring a bishop.
The resignation will be a major credibility blow to the Church’s high-profile crusade against same-sex marriage.
Kelvin Holdsworth, the Episcopalian Bishop of Glasgow, addressing the allegations facing the cardinal, said “such talk has been doing the rounds privately for some time”.
Leading historian Professor Tom Devine claimed that, “in the interests of fairness it is now time for O’Brien’s anonymous accusers to step forward into the public domain”.
Lothian and Borders Police said they had received no complaints about the claims, which the cardinal continues to contest. It was reported that three priests and a former priest at the centre of the allegations in the St Andrews and Edinburgh Archdiocese submitted four statements to the Papal Nuncio Antonio Mennini’s office the week before Pope Benedict’s resignation was announced on February 11.
The statements, it is alleged, detailed inappropriate advances and “unwanted behaviour” by the cardinal in the 1980s, on one occasion after late-night drinking.
Before the development, Cardinal O’Brien had been due to formally apply to resign when he turns 75 on March 17, and, because of mounting health problems, he was expected to be allowed to retire. It is unlikely he would have stood down until the summer.
But in its statement, the Scottish Catholic Media Office said: “The Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI has accepted
For any good I have been able to do, I thank God. For any failures, I apologise to all whom I have offended
on February 18, 2013 the resignation of His Eminence Cardinal Keith Patrick O’Brien from the pastoral governance of the Archdiocese of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh. This information will be announced and published in the Osservatore Romano of Monday February 25, 2013.”
Reacting to the acceptance of his resignation, Cardinal O’Brien said: “Approaching the age of 75 and at times in indifferent health, I tendered my resignation as Archbishop of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh to Pope Benedict XVI some months ago.
“I was happy to know that he accepted my resignation ‘nunc pro tunc’ (now, but to take effect later) on November 13, 2012.
“The Holy Father has now decided that my resignation will take effect today, February 25, 2013, and that he will appoint an Apostolic Administrator to govern the Archdiocese in my place until my successor as Archbishop is appointed.
“I have valued the opportunity of serving the people of Scotland and overseas in various ways since becoming a priest.
“Looking back over my years of ministry: For any good I have been able to do, I thank God. For any failures, I apologise to all whom I have offended.
“I thank Pope Benedict XVI for his kindness and courtesy to me and on my own behalf and on behalf of the people of Scotland,
I thank Pope Benedict XVI for his kindness and courtesy to me and on my own behalf and on behalf of the people of Scotland I wish him a long and happy retirement
I wish him a long and happy retirement.
“I also ask God’s blessing on my brother cardinals who will soon gather in Rome to elect his successor.
“I will not join them for this conclave in person.”
The cardinal remained in his residence at Morningside in Edinburgh after the announcement.
One of his visitors was Monsignor Thomas Chambers, who was with the Cardinal as the announcement that the Pope had accepted his resignation was made.
As he drove out, the Right Rev Mgr Chambers told waiting journalists: “I have seen him and he’s doing fine.”
Asked how the Church would come through this latest crisis, he said: “It’s over 2000 years old – it’s survived a lot. So we’ll come through this together.”
ON Saturday I enjoyed a light lunch (lasagne) and then watched a major sporting event. Shock result, but no matter. Then on Sunday I attended a religious service, heard an impressive homily, and went on to visit a couple of folk in hospital. All seemed as it should be over a quiet, routine weekend.
The above sentences are complete fiction. They are full of lies. None of that happened.
But we now appear to be living in a world where truth is an optional extra, at best; a world that is replete with deceit and routine fraud.
After recent events it’s clear that we cannot necessarily believe what we are told on the tin, or the food labelling. And a significant amount of top-level sport is apparently fraudulent. Fixing, cheating and corruption are far more prevalent than many of us liked to think.
So just whom can you believe? Indeed can you believe anyone at all in any position of responsibility or authority? Can you trust clerics, or doctors? I’d like to think so, but occasionally you have to wonder. Yesterday’s resignation of Cardinal Keith O’Brien, a venerated and respected figure, crystallises this crucial issue of trust. Meanwhile hospital waiting times are cynically manipulated. And so a corroding doubt seeps through our society.
Organised religion and the health service are, for very many people, necessary, essential recipients – in different ways – of belief and trust. Yet even they are by no means immune from this debilitating scourge. Where can we place our confident convictions, if we have any left? What can we put our trust in? To paraphrase Bob Dylan: does all the truth in the world add up to one big lie?
For as long as I can remember, few people have trusted politicians. One of the problems for politicians is that while they pay lip service to noble ideals such as social justice, human rights, equality and fairness, they realise that many, possibly most, people are ultimately much more interested in their own standard of living.
As for journalists, they used to be down there with used car salesmen (never, for some reason, new car salesmen). But somehow, the hacking scandal notwithstanding, the stock of journalists appears to be rising just a little. Perhaps this is because other bogey men and women are fast emerging to take their place. Bankers, for example; and accountants, too. If we go back to the crisis of 2007 and 2008, where were the audit committees, the auditors themselves, the regulators? Sometimes it seems that we live a society that apparently has all the right structures in place – but the edifices are rotten, always about to fall down.
And is there a single living human being who is widely regarded as a beacon of decency and integrity on an international scale? We now live in the so-called global village, but it is amazing how few of the “leaders” in the village are trusted and respected for their goodness and probity. Mother Theresa perhaps came quite close to enjoying pretty well universal reverence, but then she was hardly a “leader”.
I conducted a very small and unscientific survey to find if there was anyone alive today, any
Politicians are pretty cynical about the lies that most of them tell
international figure, who was generally respected, admired, and believed – and only one name came up: Nelson Mandela.
He is a very old man now; he will be 95 this summer. When he dies, there will be genuine grief, worldwide, because he is seen to represent something that so few other prominent people do. Where are his successors?
Even Mr Mandela was, by his own testimony, never any kind of saint. Not even, he noted modestly, on the limited definition of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying. Not so long ago many people, not only in South Africa, demonised him.
The most powerful personage in the world is supposed to be the President of the United States. President Obama is probably better than most of the recent ones, but he has not kept his specific promises on Guantanamo prison.
The last president of the US who was pretty well universally regarded as a pillar of integrity was Jimmy Carter, and as it happens he was also regarded as one of the least competent and effective presidents of modern times. That says a lot.
Jimmy Carter was a very decent man, but hopeless at deploying power. He was proud that he had never once lied to the American people, yet that was nothing like enough to gain him a second term in office. Of course we accept that most politicians do lie, from time to time. In the House of Commons, at the very heart of UK power, it is “unparliamentary” for one MP to call another a liar. So a kind of silly game is played, because they want to call each other liars – in this, are they telling the truth? – and they play with words to get round the convention. Thus Winston Churchill once said of Aneurin Bevan: “It is hardly possible to state the opposite of the truth with more precision”.
Indeed, politicians, even the most eminent, are pretty cynical about the lies that most of them tell. Depressingly, they can be equally cynical about telling the truth. It was Bismarck who said: “If you want to fool the world, tell the truth”. One of the more obscure British prime ministers, Arthur Balfour, said: “It is seldom possible – if ever necessary – to tell the whole truth.” Was he lying when he said that?
It‘s quite possible that in the past we all trusted too well, and too easily. Perhaps a growing climate of scepticism, a persistent challenging of what we are told, would be no bad thing – as long as it does not lead to a society in which no-one believes anything at all.