Cardinal O'Brien Isn't Going To Help Any Closeted Priests

I said last month that, were it not for the actions that led up to it, Cardinal O'Brien's very public fall from grace would've been the highlight of 2013 for me. What actions was it that made me a little more reluctant to gloat? Was it the fact he'd hurt so many people with his aggressive and hurtful language in opposition to LGBT freedom? Nope, though he did. 

My concerns with Cardinal O'Brien stem not from his textbook example of how to be a homophobic closet-case, but from the fact he hurt several men he was responsible for. From a position of power he made inappropriate sexual advances on men who clearly did not want them. I know how the media love a good "former homophobe comes out and makes good" story and I know I'm no fan of such narratives (see my distaste for people like Nigel Evans). But this is not even one of those stories. 

Cardinal O'Brien is a man we should be glad to have got rid of, a man whose story serves only as an example of how not to live your life. So why am I bringing him up again? Because Mary McAleese, former President of the Republic of Ireland, thinks Cardinal O'Brien telling his life story would some how assist priests struggling with their sexuality. 

I'm afraid Cardinal O'Brien has done enough damage as it is, unhelpfully feeding the homophobic stereotype of gay men as sexual predators. And when it comes to a group such as priests they didn't need any more bad press of that sort. It is, I've no doubt, far harder for a Catholic priest to come out post-O'Brien's downfall that it was before. 

And what would his story say? Would it paint him as the victim of his sexual desires? Is a man who takes out an internal conflict by making unwanted sexual advances against others really a man who has anything useful to tell us about overcoming fears of coming out? 

I cannot imagine a worst example. Though an example of how not to do things can be useful, the risk of making him some sympathetic character and of him overshadowing his victims (once again) is one I think is best avoided. 

Keep O'Brien away. Give the Catholic church a chance to make good on the pain he, and others like him, have caused to others. And offer real support to struggling priests with LGBT outreach and avoid tarring them with any connection to such an unworthy man as Cardinal Keith O'Brien. Give them hope, not hate. 

This Leftie/Liberal Love-In For The Pope Has Got To Stop

I can't claim to be an expert on Catholicism. I've grown up a cultural Anglican (though thankfully I've been spared a religious upbringing) whose interest in other religions has never stretched to the Roman Catholic church. I think this is perhaps because the Roman Catholic church is so complicated and has so many different organisations, styles and, above all, saints that it would require a lifetime's study to do it justice. And as I believe it is all make-believe I'm not interested in expending the time on it that I instead give to New Religious Movements (those are the things evangelical Christians call "cults"). So this post isn't really about Catholic doctrine, it is instead about the weird and rather disturbing reaction of some needy liberal types out there to media reports on Pope Francis. 

I've got to give Pope Francis credit. He's certainly shaken up the media's perception of the Papacy. Pope Benedict's reign was overshadowed by the child abuse scandals. Pope Francis has managed to change the narrative ever so slightly. Feel good pieces about him responding to an Italian teenagers letter by picking up the phone and having a chat. Stories of him shunning some of the more obvious trappings of wealth normally reserved for the Pope abound. But what the media are really lapping up are snippets of conversations, press releases and interviews that hint at some sort of "liberalising" of Catholic doctrine.

When I say "hint at" what this actually means is "if you read them out of context" or "if you read them and don't quite understand religion at all".

Just take this week's stories on Pope Francis suggesting the Church should "obsess" over gay marriage, contraception and abortion. These stories sprung up from this interview and, more specifically, this paragraph:

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

What Pope Francis was saying is the Church has a more important mission, preaching the Gospel, and it shouldn't get bogged down in a strict focus on certain moral issues. That isn't to say it is changing its mind on those issues, just that it needs to ensure the main message of the Church isn't overshadowed. This is, from a Christian perspective, a bit like saying "I believe Jesus is the Son of God" (sorry Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists, I know you don't quite support that...). I.e. this is a no-brainer, a given, a non-story.

But the reaction on Twitter, both on my personal feed and on my saved "Gay Marriage" feed, was overwealming positive from non-believers and liberal sorts. You'd think he'd come out in support of abortion and marriage equality if you judged by the tone of some of these folks. And some actually believe he did!!

This has got to stop. @michaelcarre described this as people willing to "accept crumbs" and I have to agree. And, this will be controversial I'm sure, it wouldn't matter to me if the Catholic church suddenly supported every social issue I support. It is still NOT TRUE. The Pope is the head of an organisation based on a false belief. Just because a homeopath supports marriage equality I wouldn't suddenly welcome medical assistance from said homeopath. I'd still think they were mistaken.

Whilst you've all been having your love-in over the Pope, the Catholic church has ex-communicated a former priest for setting up an organisation that supports the ordination of women and equal marriage.

Wake up and stop being taken in by poor reporting of a media-savvy Pope. The Pope is, still, a Catholic. 

Does The Vatican Have A "Gay Lobby" Or Are We Looking At Another Catholic Child Abuse Story?

Ever since Pope Benedict XVI's unexpected resignation there have been rumours of a gay lobby in the Vatican. Supposedly a corrupting influence, this lobby is even more of a risk to the Pope as it fights off blackmail attempts (the different angles, and the way they have been reported, are summed up very well here). Pope Francis has acknowledged the existence of this gay lobby and seems to be making plans to purge the Vatican of it. 

Sounds all very "Lavender Scare" to me. 

But... is it really a gay lobby? Or is it just a rebranded child abuse problem? For many decades it has been common to smear gay people with the paedophile tag. Most reasonable people now recognise there is a difference (and there really is a difference!). However given the Vatican's deep-seated dislike of us LGBT folk (sorry their "love" for us) and given that the Vatican has a very good reason to want to avoid another child abuse scandal, especially this close to home, is it possible that this "gay lobby" business is an attempt to smear the LGBT rights movement whilst protecting, in a small way, what is left of the Catholic Church's reputation? 

Because the latest rumours coming out on this story (and they are just rumours) are suggesting that some of those involved may well be young boys. If these rumours are substantiated maybe we should be asking whether any of those accused have ever had an adult gay relationship? Because I have to say if they haven't then calling it a gay lobby might be redefining the word "gay" (again) and you know how right-wingers didn't like it when we did that! 

I'm pretty sure heads will start to roll soon, and we may then find out what is going on at the Vatican. 

Don't Cry For Cardinal O'Brien

So the game is up. Cardinal Keith O'Brien may not have specifically admitted what he has been accused of but he has "apologised" for his sexual conduct falling "beneath the standards expected".

"However, I wish to take this opportunity to admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal." 

"To those I have offended, I apologise and ask forgiveness. To the Catholic Church and people of Scotland, I also apologise."   

"I will now spend the rest of my life in retirement. I will play no further part in the public life of the Catholic Church in Scotland."

It did not take long for some LGBT commentators to suddenly feel sorry for him. As with Nigel Evans, it doesn't take long for an opponent to be taken to our bosom just because they are gay (although let's be honest, Cardinal O'Brien is probably not "gay". For once "suffering from same sex attraction" might be appropriate)

Cardinal O'Brien is more a victim of homophobia than a perpetrator of it. He deserves compassion, not jeering
— Johann Hari (@johannhari101) March 3, 2013

Cardinal O'Brien hasn't just been accused of having a bit of a roll in the hay when he shouldn't have. His accusers have suggested inappropriate sexual advances. Does Lord Rennard deserve our compassion more than jeering (Christians need not answer this one)? Can you imagine anyone being allowed to suggest something like that if the victims had been female? No. But because he was doing it to people of the same sex, and has now come clean, suddenly he is deserving of our compassion??

This man preached hate against us for many years. He has admitted to sexual misconduct and he is accused of far worse. If he gets to live a quiet retirement out of the public gaze then he should count himself lucky. He doesn't need any further compassion from us.

That sad little man will sadly not get what he really deserves in the afterlife. Sometimes being an atheist really does suck.

A Catholic Brain Dump

John Cornwell is the writer of "Hitler's Pope"; a book not without some controversy. So when he writes an article for the Daily Mail, which spells out some of the current controversies within the Vatican and postulates that Pope Benedict XVI resigned to bring an end to them, we should read it with a degree of scepticism. But it is an interesting description of the troubles that continue to haunt the upper echelons of the Catholic church.

A lot of the reporting on the Catholic church's scandals is based more on a puerile sort of rubber necking than actual concern for the victims, for the church or for those of us whose relationships and lives get attacked by Catholic cardinals and bishops on a near daily basis. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother to care (considering I'd probably open a nice big bottle of champagne should Catholicism suffer some sort of major calamity). But unfortunately, whilst we have people like Cardinal O'Brien trying to influence our Government, we must care about the internal workings of this religion.

Speaking of Cardinal O'Brien... the claims against him remain unresolved and so we must give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of what may or may not have happened. However it is interesting reading one of his accusers remarking on the "cold disapproval" they experienced when they reported their concerns, and that he was warned about the damage his accusations might cause to the church. Which only goes to shows how little the Catholic hierarchy has learnt from previous controversies.

And when one speaks of Cardinal O'Brien one can't help thinking of one word in particular: hypocrisy. If the allegations are true then Cardinal O'Brien has been one of those irritating people who tell us how we must live but fail to live up to their own standards. I saw this blog the other day on the subject of "Hypocrisy is now the only sin... ?" and found it missed the point somewhat whilst still pointing out some real problems with the media narrative. It suggests the problem people have with the Catholic church and people like Cardinal O'Brien is that they aren't living up to our expectations. But that isn't hypocrisy, that would be a naive belief in the goodness of people. No, the problem is that they are not living up their own expectations whilst they continue to demand others follow what they teach. And quoting Brendan O'Neill. Really?

"But I am concerned at how accusations of sexual wickedness have replaced political, moral or theological critiques to become the No1 shortcut to getting one over on people or groups you don't like."

Surely this acts in reverse too. Until very recently the church hardly engaged with homosexuality with political, moral or theological critiques and instead thrived on accusations of sexual wickedness! Now we should expect better of the church's opponents? That is hypocrisy in itself. Ultimately people are flawed (and whether you believe that is because they are part of a "Fallen" world or part of nature is neither here nor there on that front) and that is the cause of all these problems. But where I differ from Christians is that I believe people can become better through their own will in the here and now rather than be redeemed in the hereafter by the blood of Christ. Thus I probably hold us all to a higher standard than Christians do. There is no being let off the hook for your own actions in my worldview....

Which leads us neatly on to this fascinating letter on why Bishops might cover up abuse. It is this sort of insight that a lot of the media narrative has been missing.