Pope accepts resignation of disgraced anti-gay Cardinal Keith O’Brien

[DonViejo]

The disgraced British Cardinal will not be stripped of his title, but has renounced the rights and privileges that come with it.

Cardinal O’Brien resigned as Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh in 2013 after admitting to “inappropriate sexual behaviour” with several priests.

In November 2012, he was named ‘Bigot of the Year’ by gay rights charity Stonewall due to his staunch opposition to LGBT rights and marriage equality.

Previously he had stated that same-sex relationships were “harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing” and compared equal marriage to slavery and child abuse. It was also alleged Cardinal O’Brien had a long-standing physical relationship with one of the men whose complaints about his conduct sparked his resignation.

According to reports, the Cardinal will have no participation in any public, religious or civil events.
He said in a statement: “I wish to repeat the apology which I made to the Catholic church and the people of Scotland some two years ago now on 3 March 2013.

more:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/20/pope-accepts-resignation-of-disgraced-anti-gay-cardinal-keith-obrien/

[cbayer]

1. I guess the investigation team he sent pushed him to the wall...

and that's good.

Too bad they didn't strip him of his priesthood.

Hypocritical bigot.

[okasha]

3. From the rest of the story,

it seems that the only priestly function he's permitted is to say Mass in private, for himself. Allowing him to retain his priesthood also allows Francis to retain control over him and set the conditions of his retirement.

[cbayer]

4. He can say mass for himself? That's just weird.

I didn't know they could even do that.

I would have cut him loose, but I see your point about continuing to have control over him.

[okasha]

6. Many priests--those who don't have pastoral duties, for exampl

say Mass privately, without a congregation.

[cbayer]

7. I did not know that. I would have thought that if they wanted a mass

they would go to a church.

[okasha]

9. Mass can be said anywhere,

even where there aren't any churches. I remember a picture in National Geographic, I think, of a priest who was also a wildlife biologist saying Mass out in the middle of the Serengeti, using the tailgate of his truck for an altar.

[cbayer]

11. I knew that it could be said anywhere, it just never occurred to me

that a priest would say it just for themselves.

Seems odd.

[hrmjustin]

12. It is very common and in older times very common.

It is called a silent mass.

[cbayer]

14. Learn something new every day.

Thanks!

[hrmjustin]

15. .

[Lordquinton]

2. Title is misleading

I know it's the title of the story, but it makes it seem like the church is investigating him for homophobic comments he made, rather he is being investigated for sexual misconduct, with other priests.

It seems like a good to read story, but really it's like peeling a rotten onion.

[cbayer]

5. Why is it like peeling a rotten onion?

They investigated him and exposed his rank hypocrisy, then publicly punished him.

What would you have had them do?

[Lordquinton]

8. It's obvious

you must be choosing to not see it.

[cbayer]

13. Yes, that's right. I'm choosing not to see it.

Or you really don't know what you meant.

[Lordquinton]

16. We both know what I meant

You are choosing to not see it.

[cbayer]

17. No, honestly I don't know what you meant.

You are trying so hard to find something negative about this that you made a statement that really doesn't make sense in context.

The Vatican investigated a bad priest. The man is a hateful homophobe whose personal behavior was grossly hypocritical.

He was forced to resign and had all his privileges stripped.

How that gets to be a rotten onion is not clear at all to me.

So do you want to explain what you meant or not?

[okasha]

10. His Lordship can't explain it.

It must be that he's relying on "another way of knowing"

[Goblinmonger]

20. He wasn't forced to resign for being a homophobe as the headline alludes.

He was forced to resign because of homosexual activity. Which, ironically, is kind of homophobic.

How is that so hard for people to understand?

[LeftishBrit]

18. Good that he's going

Here is a link to a thread about him from 2012 - when his viciousness had become very obvious, though his hypocrisy not fully so:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121812610

Also see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13179851

[Humanist_Activist]

19. Why bother calling him anti-gay? He's a Catholic Cardinal, they are anti-gay by default.

Seems redundant to specify it. Also this had nothing to do with why he resigned.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. This is a highly misleading title

O'Brien is both anti-gay (as all cardinals, and the pope, are). He's also disgraced, for unconnected reasons.

Implying a link between the two is highly misleading.

[cbayer]

22. His having been dismissed because of his own homosexual activity unconnected?

I think the hypocrisy is what makes this so relevant.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. That is neither of the two things I said were unconnected.

The two things that the OP implies, and I am denying, a connection - and arguably a causal link - between are that he is anti-gay and that he is disgraced.

"Anti-gay gay cardinal O'Brien disgraced and dismissed for homosexual activity" would be a perfectly good headline.

My objection is to the implication that being anti-gay is cause for disgrace or dismissal in the Catholic church.

[cbayer]

24. I can see how you might read it that way, but I disagree.

He was investigated because of his hypocrisy. One of the priests he was involved in made formal complaints about him.

I don't think the Catholic Church is going to disgrace or dismiss someone for being anti-gay, at least not in the near future, and I don't think the author of this piece implies that that is what happened.