This afternoon, Keith O'Brien, a former archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and cardinal who was only a short flight away from picking the next pope, admitted, after more than a week of lying about it, that "there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal". My mouth fell open.
It wasn't so much sexual misconduct in the Catholic church but the way O'Brien phrased his admission. What exactly is the standard above which the sexual conduct of a cardinal should fall? Isn't sexual conduct in all and any forms a big nono for Catholic priests? Do laxer rules apply to archbishops and cardinals? Is the pope allowed to attend bunga bunga parties? In his 80s? Very strange indeed.
A look back: Three priests and a former priest, male all four of them, allege being contacted inappropriately, after night prayers for example, by the cardinal who was back then just a priest. The complaints aren't any more specific, but it's easy to imagine if you're so inclined. The cardinal's reaction: "I will will now spend the rest of my life in retirement".
I don't understand. By the cardinal's own words, homosexuals are "captives of sexual aberrations". According to Leviticus, homosexuality is an abomination before the lord. Surely if Keith O'Brien lives by what he taught, he will request excommunication and live the rest of his life in penance and regret – or, because he'd be free of the Catholic hogwash about his sexuality, in a loving relationship with the partner he looked for but never found.
That O'Brien was awarded the "Bigot of the Year" trophy by Stonewall, a London-based gay-rights group, late last year now sounds almost miraculously clairvoyant, as if the hand of a higher being had been involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment