Following allegations made in the press yesterday, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who was due to fly out to Rome and join the conclave which will choose the next Pope, has resigned.
Cardinal O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, was due to be the only British representative at the papal conclave.
Three priests and one former priest had made an official complaint to the papal nuncio’s London office. They decided to go public because they felt it improper that Cardinal O’Brien should attend the papal conclave.
As, I’ve said on many occasions before on The Needle, when a name is made public, it is often the case that others, who had previously thought themselves alone, are more likely to come forward and it may well be the case that the bravery of the four priests who had the courage to go public, might have encouraged others with similar experiences to come forward.
Below is one of the news stories from yesterday.
The four complaints against Cardinal Keith O’Brien alleging “inappropriate acts” were given to the pope’s representative in the UK, Antonio Mennini, in early February.
They arrived at the papal nuncio’s London office, delivered by a trusted intermediary from the cardinal’s diocese, a few days before Pope Benedict XVI stunned the Catholic world with his decision to resign.
The earliest of the allegations, which are denied by O’Brien, dates back to 1980. That complainant, who is now married, was then a 20-year-old seminarian at St Andrew’s College, Drygrange, where O’Brien was the rector and his “spiritual director”. The statement claims he made an inappropriate approach after night prayers.
theneedleblog 
Sorry I meant my dad said, “the best Jap is a dead Jap”
The real story is the Belgian Cardinal Danneels’ connections to Marc Dutroux (Dutroux’s wife was released from her sentence early- to a Catholic convent…)
my dad was involved in the 2nd world war (soldier) he always said to me, ” the best Catholic is a dead Catholic”
The euphemistic language in which this sort of caper is couched is always intriguing enough to make it sound serious and sordid, but equally nebulous enough to avoid any inclination of just exactly what went on. I mean just exactly what is “inappropriate”? For example if his holiness had said “Fuck me that’s enough praising for today, I’ve been kissing God’s arse all day long and i’m ready to party, let’s do a bottle of Scotch in and go and lob some bricks through the convent greenhouse” would that be considered inappropriate, or just matey bonding style get to know the lads type all we clerics know how to hang with our homies in the hood? Conversely if his holiness had put his hand up the semenarian’s surplice whilst simultaneously tugging on his rosary, could that be construed as inappropriate or simply enthusiastic religious exuberance?
I watched an interview with him last night and the overall impression that he gave me was that well, things were different back then and what is inappropriate now may not have been then. Really? Abuse is abuse, alleged or not.
Pingback: Cardinal Keith O’Brien Resigns | Alternative News Network
How many Priest’s does it take to change a Cardinal?
It sounds like the start of a joke but it seems that the answer is 4. :-)