|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should Cardinals Mahony and O'Brien go to Conclave?
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
No iron in the fire here, I'm just wondering what people think.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
This is not like some parliamentary election. And it is impossble to check the pedigree of each and every one cardinal. These men are flawed, some more so than others, and as long as there has been a conclave the pope has always been elected by cardinals who range from saintly to belonging to The Other Place.
As always, this group of men which might constitute, for the eyes of a Western, postmodern, hyper-rationalist mind which has been deeply soaked in the 'truths' of democracy, equality, political correctness and other recent cultural inventions, a rather motley crew, will pray more or less faithfully to the Holy Spirit to guide them in their votes throughout the conclave, and out will come... a new pope.
Our Church has survived some saints and some sinners, and in the end it is a human exercise of trying to steer that which is ultimately the work of God.
So, I'm cool about it.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
O'Brien -- definitely, yes. The day after he makes some controversial remarks about relaxing clerical celibacy some people come out of the woodwork with accusation of impropiety on the part of the Cardinal (with no suggestion of sexual molestation of minors) from 30 years ago. Do the media not see how they're being played?
Mahoney -- different story, but still yes. There are questions over his handling of priests guilty of sexual abuse in his diocese. But, they are questions. His letter on this subject repays careful reading. Did he make mistakes? Yes. But, they were the same mistakes everyone in any child-service leadership are was making (and many fewer than certain others).
If we said that no-one who's ever made a mistake should have a leadership role in the Church, we'd be left in a rather shepherd-less place. (And we'd have abandoned Jesus' example).
[ 24. February 2013, 15:42: Message edited by: Hart ]
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
I rather disagree with my two co-religionists who have so far replied to the OP.
Under our safeguarding rules the allegations made against Cardinal O'Brien would normally result in removal from all public ministry on administrative leave until the allegations have been properly investigated and, in the event of them being found to be unfounded, a risk assessment having been completed. If these allegations have been passed-on by the Nuncio to the Holy Father, as is reported, then His Eminence should recuse himself from the Conclave, unless he is cleared before it begins.
As for Cardinal Mahoney (and Cardinal Daneels, for that matter), pace Hart, his behaviour isn't just what everyone else did - although that is what he has sought to portray - it was a gross betrayal of those in his pastoral care. Daneels involvement in the Vangheluwe case is one of the most egregious examples of dereliction of duty in a period of time when just too many of our shepherds have shown he selves to be hired men.
As I said on another thread, Cardinal Pell, when Archbishop of Melbourne in 2002, showed the proper course of action. He stepped down until he had been cleared. These other men have no idea of the scandal they cause and hey will take this scandal into the Conclave with them unless they shake off this hubris.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
I'm of the opinion Mahoney should stay home. There was a meeting of those in his home church - the vast majority of whom agree. There was serious negligence and harm done to his congregation during his tenure during the pedophile scandal and he proved himself unworthy of the office of Cardinal by his handling of pedophile priests whose discipline he was responsible for. There were also children in other congregations harmed when he turned those same priests lose on other congregations with no warning.
ETA: Mahoney was removed from his public duties at the church and that should require his no attending the conclave to vote.
X-post with Trisagion
[ 24. February 2013, 16:05: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
If either of them is not fit to exercise their role of leadership in the church, they should be removed from that role. If they are considered fit to exercise the role of Cardinal, they should exercise that completely, including attending the conclave.
If they are not/have not been removed as Cardinals, then this says something about where the Catholic Church stands.
You cannot remove everyone from leadership who has made mistakes. But the mistakes that you overlook does make a statement about what you consider important.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
O'Brien -- definitely, yes. The day after he makes some controversial remarks about relaxing clerical celibacy some people come out of the woodwork with accusation of impropiety on the part of the Cardinal (with no suggestion of sexual molestation of minors) from 30 years ago. Do the media not see how they're being played?
It would seem that this misrepresents what happened.
From the BBC:
quote:
The four complained in the week before 11 February, when Pope Benedict announced his resignation. The complainants have now called for the cardinal's immediate resignation.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
While I lean toward Trisagion's pretty clear position on this-- zero tolerance for senior levels of responsibility is not a bad approach -- I would always be a tad concerned over charges at a cardinal which appear just after the papal election machine comes into motion (this is Not a comment in any way on the substance of the Cardinal O'Brien accusations).
With respect to Cardinal Mahoney, I would counsel him to issue a statement that, immediately following the election, he will petition the new pope to accept his resignation from the cardinalate. As it is, we wonder if he was sorry for his actions, or just sorry that he was found out, or annoyed that the goalposts moved. Such a move would perhaps convince some of us of the level of his sincerity.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
While I lean toward Trisagion's pretty clear position on this-- zero tolerance for senior levels of responsibility is not a bad approach -- I would always be a tad concerned over charges at a cardinal which appear just after the papal election machine comes into motion
Always? I know these sort of accusations are made all too frequently, but have you really had such a great experience of them that you can formulate a general policy? In cases where accusations are made about a cardinal in the early stages of a papal election it pays, on balance, to be a tad concerned? Experience has taught you this?
(Although the post above yours points out that the accusations were made in the week before the pope announced his resignation.)
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
While I lean toward Trisagion's pretty clear position on this-- zero tolerance for senior levels of responsibility is not a bad approach -- I would always be a tad concerned over charges at a cardinal which appear just after the papal election machine comes into motion
Always? I know these sort of accusations are made all too frequently, but have you really had such a great experience of them that you can formulate a general policy? In cases where accusations are made about a cardinal in the early stages of a papal election it pays, on balance, to be a tad concerned? Experience has taught you this?
(Although the post above yours points out that the accusations were made in the week before the pope announced his resignation.)
The answer is Yes. I have worked in enough elections, and observed them closely enough at times when I could not, to assume that any information about a candidate (or in the papal electoral process) an elector, is simply informational or neutral in intent. I would go so far as to assume that any release of information -- or institution of a process -- should be examined carefully to ensure that it is not intentional and oriented toward influencing the process, or an agenda.
I did make it clear that I was speaking generally and not about the O'Brien accusations, of which I know little.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
While I lean toward Trisagion's pretty clear position on this-- zero tolerance for senior levels of responsibility is not a bad approach -- I would always be a tad concerned over charges at a cardinal which appear just after the papal election machine comes into motion
Always? I know these sort of accusations are made all too frequently, but have you really had such a great experience of them that you can formulate a general policy? In cases where accusations are made about a cardinal in the early stages of a papal election it pays, on balance, to be a tad concerned? Experience has taught you this?
(Although the post above yours points out that the accusations were made in the week before the pope announced his resignation.)
The answer is Yes. I have worked in enough elections, and observed them closely enough at times when I could not, to assume that any information about a candidate (or in the papal electoral process) an elector, is simply informational or neutral in intent. I would go so far as to assume that any release of information -- or institution of a process -- should be examined carefully to ensure that it is not intentional and oriented toward influencing the process, or an agenda.
I did make it clear that I was speaking generally and not about the O'Brien accusations, of which I know little.
Thanks, A the Aleut. It goes to show that I shouldn't make assumptions about other people here, whose experience is often quite remarkable and deeply specialized. A veteran of papal elections, familiar with the patterns of allegations against cardinals - you never know who's behind the avatar, do you?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
"Caesars wife" guidelines suggest that any Cardinal so accused should recuse himself. If any accusation is timed to be malicious, and you know it to be false, then you trust the investigatory process to reveal the low blow.
But I'm conscious that these traditional, honourable and wise guidelines have themselves been poisoned by spin awareness. I'm not pointing to any specific allegation, but people have been known to act maliciously to force the hand of those who are might be expected to take the high ground, knowing full well the probable effect.
In general, I hold to Trisagion's position. It's better to protect and respect the probity of the processes, both the one from which you recuse yourself and the one governing investigation. But it's a closer call than it was before the era of glasshouse media behaviour and spin. There are some new opportunities for malice these days.
[ 25. February 2013, 09:18: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
O'Brien has resigned.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
O'Brien has resigned.
Now if only Mahoney would do the same. His transgressions are a matter of public record, made public very recently as proof.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Mahoney -- different story, but still yes. There are questions over his handling of priests guilty of sexual abuse in his diocese. But, they are questions. His letter on this subject repays careful reading. Did he make mistakes? Yes. But, they were the same mistakes everyone in any child-service leadership are was making (and many fewer than certain others).
Sure, there are questions about Cardinal Mahony mishandling sexual abuse cases. Just as there were questions about O.J. Simpson murdering his wife. Throw enough lawyers and money at solid facts and they turn into "questions".
Should Cardinals Mahony and Danneels and stay at home? Heck, yes. Will they? Heck, no. But I'm hopeful that it will not matter much.
P.S.: It's "Mahony" without an "e" and "Danneels" with double "n" and double "e".
P.P.S.: Didn't see the news that Cardinal O'Brien has stepped down. I have edited his name out of my statement above about staying home. Not just because he will, but because he did a honourable thing and doesn't deserve that company.
[ 25. February 2013, 10:51: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
While I lean toward Trisagion's pretty clear position on this-- zero tolerance for senior levels of responsibility is not a bad approach -- I would always be a tad concerned over charges at a cardinal which appear just after the papal election machine comes into motion
Always? I know these sort of accusations are made all too frequently, but have you really had such a great experience of them that you can formulate a general policy? In cases where accusations are made about a cardinal in the early stages of a papal election it pays, on balance, to be a tad concerned? Experience has taught you this?
(Although the post above yours points out that the accusations were made in the week before the pope announced his resignation.)
The answer is Yes. I have worked in enough elections, and observed them closely enough at times when I could not, to assume that any information about a candidate (or in the papal electoral process) an elector, is simply informational or neutral in intent. I would go so far as to assume that any release of information -- or institution of a process -- should be examined carefully to ensure that it is not intentional and oriented toward influencing the process, or an agenda.
I did make it clear that I was speaking generally and not about the O'Brien accusations, of which I know little.
Thanks, A the Aleut. It goes to show that I shouldn't make assumptions about other people here, whose experience is often quite remarkable and deeply specialized. A veteran of papal elections, familiar with the patterns of allegations against cardinals - you never know who's behind the avatar, do you?
Hatless-- I am sorry that you misunderstood my post. I was referring to elections generally-- perhaps I should have specified that this meant the federal elections of 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1993; provincial elections of 1985, 1986, 1990, 1993 and 2001; municipal of 1998, 2001, and 2004, and two party leadership contests, but I did not think that such a lengthy list would have interested anybody-- indeed, I got bored typing out the list. I would say that makes me capable of commenting on elections. Papal elections are different, of course, in that they are as much about the electors as the candidates.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
That's it, O'Brien has resigned.
I just hope that this will not be construed by the greedy media as an automatic admission of fault.
But of course it will be...
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
So no special experience of charges against cardinals during elections?
I find it odd that you put the question thus given what I have already said. My post was general about elections (I hope that I don't have to repeat this a 3d and 4th time) and I can give you a few examples about allegations at election time-- I think I even have in my files a handout from the 1980 campaign accusing Pierre Trudeau of masterminding all-male orgies at 24 Sussex Drive in order to dominate media coverage by blackmailing journalists. I recall being part of a provincial campaign committee which expelled one member for circulating private information about (non-criminal) real estate dealings by an opposing candidate-- for the record, we then privately told that candidate's campaign team and were thanked for doing so-- things were different in those more polite days.
Allegations at election time need to be put under a very careful and critical lens. Sometimes they're pertinent and accurate, and sometimes they're not.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
The Catholic Church sets its own rules about these sorts of things (and rightly so). If they didn't want accused cardinal-malefactors voting for Pope, they'd have rules against it. Expecting wrongdoers to "do the right thing" voluntarily seems a fairly contradictory expectation.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The Catholic Church sets its own rules about these sorts of things (and rightly so). If they didn't want accused cardinal-malefactors voting for Pope, they'd have rules against it. Expecting wrongdoers to "do the right thing" voluntarily seems a fairly contradictory expectation.
Given the solid evidence, not just "questions" or accusations against 2 cardinals that I know of who totally mishandled the pedophile priest scandal and who knowingly sent pedophile priests to minister to children in other churches without so much as a warning to them and who actively covered up the activity of these same priests and the fact that I have not seen the Vatican take any action against them, though Mahony's church did remove him from any service, I don't have much hope of a clean conclave voting for the next pope. Saddens me greatly as one is desperately needed at this time.
[ 25. February 2013, 14:10: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The Catholic Church sets its own rules about these sorts of things (and rightly so). If they didn't want accused cardinal-malefactors voting for Pope, they'd have rules against it. Expecting wrongdoers to "do the right thing" voluntarily seems a fairly contradictory expectation.
Given the solid evidence, not just "questions" or accusations against 2 cardinals that I know of who totally mishandled the pedophile priest scandal and who knowingly sent pedophile priests to minister to children in other churches without so much as a warning to them and who actively covered up the activity of these same priests and the fact that I have not seen the Vatican take any action against them, though Mahony's church did remove him from any service, I don't have much hope of a clean concave voting for the next pope. Saddens me greatly as one is desperately needed at this time.
Vincent Nichols and (very remotely) Diarmuid Martin could be theoretically appointed in a consistory right up to the last minute on Thursday, but I would be very surprised if that did happen. Compare and contrast the speed of acceptance of Card. O'Brien's resignation to that of Card. Brady.
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
That's it, O'Brien has resigned.
I just hope that this will not be construed by the greedy media as an automatic admission of fault.
But of course it will be...
The media will totally assume it, but I hope that whoever it is O'Brien cares about, perhaps his peers in the hierarchy, doesn't assume it. Considering that he'd resigned a week ago, before half of this exploded, the man totally deserves not to be assumed guilty, I think. In fact, I'd say that if he's innocent or mostly innocent, he's a very very good man--stepped down knowing what people would assume because he wanted to avoid bringing scandal to the church.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
According to the BBC website, it was the Pope's decision that he should go now. Prayers for all concerned, and the RCC.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
According to NPR, he tended his resignation on the 18th, so while it may have been up to the Pope, Cardinal O'Brien intentionally made the Pope's decision; he was determined to do whatever was best for the church.
According to the BBC article,
quote:
Cardinal O'Brien said in his statement he had already tendered his resignation as Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, due to take effect when he turned 75 next month, but Pope Benedict "has now decided that my resignation will take effect today".
So it sounds like O'Brien planned to retire after the Conclave, and it was indeed Pope Benedict who moved up the date.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Compare and contrast the speed of acceptance of Card. O'Brien's resignation to that of Card. Brady.
It says more about the difficulty of finding even a half suitable replacement among the Irish clergy than it does anything else.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Please note that Cardinal O'Brien has tendered his resignation as Archbishop, and that it was this resignation which got accepted with potentially telling speed.
However, I believe that Cardinal O'Brien has neither resigned nor has he been removed from the College of Cardinals. The only reason why he will not be participating in the election of the next pope is because he has publicly declared that he will not go to Rome to do so.
His stated reason is that he didn't want to distract from the election, or in other words, he didn't want to bring the scandal for now attached to him to Rome.
If I am right in this, then whatever may turn out to be true about the allegations against Cardinal O'Brien, this was a honourable decision. He may have been leaned on to come to this decision, of course, but that is pure speculation.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If I am right in this, then whatever may turn out to be true about the allegations against Cardinal O'Brien, this was a honourable decision. He may have been leaned on to come to this decision, of course, but that is pure speculation.
Not pure speculation. Just a metric shit-tonne of speculation wrapped around the tiny nugget of his media-intensive announcement. He could have just quietly not shown up, or sent a private note to the conclave expressing his regrets, or whatever. So it's more like 99.9% speculation rather than the completely pure stuff.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not pure speculation. Just a metric shit-tonne of speculation wrapped around the tiny nugget of his media-intensive announcement. He could have just quietly not shown up, or sent a private note to the conclave expressing his regrets, or whatever. So it's more like 99.9% speculation rather than the completely pure stuff.
I think you have 0.1% of a point there.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Please note that Cardinal O'Brien has tendered his resignation as Archbishop, and that it was this resignation which got accepted with potentially telling speed.
He tendered that resignation last November. The Pope accepted it under the formula nunc pro tunc, in other words, hang on in post until I've found your replacement. The four accusers, it is reported, wrote to the Nuncio a month or so ago. The Nuncio forwarded the letters to the Pope, who alone has competence in matters of discipline regarding Cardinals. Last Tuesday, the Pope, without appointing a successor confirmed the resignation with immediate effect. Looks pretty much like Cardinal O'Brien was resigned.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
There is indeed an auxiliary bishop who has been in post since last June.He has been gradually taking over the workload of the Cardinal who was preparing to take over the post of celebrant at Mass in the seaside town of Dunbar.
Whether Bishop Robson,titular bishop of Tannuna, will take over the role of archbishop remains to be seen.I think,however, he was the man that the cardinal wished to succeed him.
It is immensely sad for the Catholic community and many others that the cardinal has come to this at the end of his long years of ministry.Whatever he may have done or not done and however strident his statements may have seemed in the last few months,he has been a man who has given great service to the Catholic church as well as to the wider community for nigh on 50 years.
What his statement today both says and doesn't say may well open a can of worms here in Scotland.
There is a popular prophecy,often discredited,that the next pope will be the last pope and that the city of Rome itself will apostacise.The resignation of a cardinal ,accused of inappropriate behaviour, on the eve of this papal conclave,called in unusual circumstances,will surely concentrate the minds of the members of the Sacred College.
/Who would have thought that small Scotland,where just under 20% of the population is Catholic,would play this part in the drama of the papal election ?
Of course I understand that the priests who are making the accusations have to be listened to and if there have been injusticies these have to be righted,but why wait until a man is about to retire ? Why not have done it before the last Conclave at which the cardinal took part ?
Is it indeed the hand of God ?
Anyway,as the Cardinal comes to the end of his public ministry,there is a member of these boards who is being inaugurated into his Church of Scotland ministry this evening and I wish Cottontail every blessing on his/her apostolic work.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I think that all the cardinals who are known to have enabled or abused should stay home.
What is done if a cardinal can't go? Can some sort of acting cardinal be appointed?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What is done if a cardinal can't go? Can some sort of acting cardinal be appointed?
No, because "cardinal" is not a position which has to be filled when one leaves or dies. For want of a better word, it's a clerical 'rank' that is not attached to any particular office, they are appointed as cardinals by the pope.
When one of them does not attend, the papal election just goes on without their participation.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
TGC--
Thanks. Thought that might be the case.
I heard on the news that there are only 2 reasons a cardinal is allowed to skip the conclave: a) can't travel; and b) illness(?). (Unsure of the last one.)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
That's it, O'Brien has resigned.
I just hope that this will not be construed by the greedy media as an automatic admission of fault.
But of course it will be...
I am sick to death of guilt by accusation.
I am sick to death of anonymous accusers bringing unspecified charges against people 30 years after 'it' all happened. I mean, what does 'inappropriate behaviour' mean exactly?
The problem is that the way the media report it, and more especially, the way the public freceive it, means that in 2013, an accusation automatically means guilt. "Oh, he must have done it other wise he wouldn't be accused."
I'm with the politician who wants the law to be changed back to the day when if you were accused of a sexual offense you could not be named until you were actually charged with it.
An arrest does not guarantee guilt, but it seems nowadays you don't even have to be arrested for you to be guilty.
It all started with Jimmy Savile and the pronouncement by the chief constable to the media that Savile was a serial pedophile and rapist. Since when did the Met become prosecutor, judge and jury?
The poor Cardinal in question had only a few weeks left to go until he retired. He is refuting the spiteful allegations and yet still has to go. I think it's grossly unfair.
All 4 of his accusers were grown men when 'it' allegedly happened; what have they been doing for 30 years!? It's not like the understandable case of a child being afraid to 'tell the secret'.
Personally, I think there should be a reasonable time in law in which to bring an accusation. 33 years is, in my view too long, too late.
And in any case he's being accused of 'inappropriate behaviour'. Sounds to me, if true, that he made a pass at a couple of young priests - hardly serial pedophilia is it!
To bring it all up now just seems spiteful to me.
[ 26. February 2013, 07:05: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
What Mudfrog said.
I feel like opening a thread in hell... ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Abuse of power can be difficult to confront, especially if you have good reason to believe nothing will be done about a complaint. Evidence suggest raising a complaint of sexual misconduct in the Catholic church until quite recently really wasn't going to work.
I don't see why we have any reason to define these allegations as spiteful, any more than we can automatically assume guilt.
If the allegations are true, it is quite likely that men who have been the object of sexual interest by the cardinal are less than impressed by the statements he makes about homosexuality. Hypocrisy does tend to seriously piss people off.
[ 26. February 2013, 07:23: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And in any case he's being accused of 'inappropriate behaviour'. Sounds to me, if true, that he made a pass at a couple of young priests - hardly serial pedophilia is it!
To bring it all up now just seems spiteful to me.
The power imbalance and use of sex to increase this use of power would be extremely serious if it were true.
It's happened to too many women, who have had to leave their jobs because of it. This sounds like a very similar allegation to me.
Should it have been kept secret until proven or unproven? I don't know - would it ever have been investigated?
(Ex post with D2 - same points)
[ 26. February 2013, 07:26: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I understand Mudfrog's post, but wish to underline Doublethink's reply with my Host Hat on.
Do have a care, Shipmates. I think it's fine to point out the general issues and risks, but legally dodgy to attribute base motives to real people, whether or not we name them. We're trying our best to draw the line between free-speech vigorous serious discussion and putting the cash-strapped Ship at risk. You'll understand our caution.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 26. February 2013, 08:01: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
an intelligent comment on this issue in today's blogpost of iBenedictines here .
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
{Hoping this is in line with the hostly ruling!}
I agree with the posts about taking the allegations seriously.
I agree it's important not to taint an innocent person. OTOH, there've been so many cases in the RCC of "of course not--he'd never do such a thing" where the person *was* guilty of abusing or enabling that it's very hard to assume that any clergy is innocent.
Kind of like Lance Armstrong and "no, I didn't dope, and neither did anyone on my team".
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
With the Jimmy Saville being a prime example. People didn't come forward because they knew for a fact that they wouldn't be believed. Such a *good* person was beyond reproach.
I wouldn't be surprised if the balance tipped the other way and innocent people were accused, lost jobs etc.
The bad apples ruin innocent lives in more than one way ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If the allegations are true, it is quite likely that men who have been the object of sexual interest by the cardinal are less than impressed by the statements he makes about homosexuality. Hypocrisy does tend to seriously piss people off. (bold changed to italics)
I find this quite wrong. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Cardinal O'Brien is a homosexual by some convenient definition. Why would it be hypocrisy for him to speak out against homosexual marriage? Why indeed would it be hypocrisy for him to condemn homosexual activity and consider homosexual orientation as intrinsically disordered? Even if he indeed was celebrating gay sex orgies every day of his life, which he most assuredly was not, the charge of hypocrisy would not necessarily stick. Hypocrisy consists in promoting standards one does not in fact hold, it does not consist in failing to adhere oneself to the standards one promotes. Wikipedia makes this point with a nice quote from Samuel Johnson:
quote:
Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.
In addition, I would say that there is no general requirement to reveal one's moral failings to the public. To God, certainly, to victims and proper authority, probably, but the Jerry Springer Show is not a must.
If we assume for the sake of argument that the allegations are true in some sense at least, then Cardinal O'Brien may well have missed an opportunity for powerful witness and indeed for pre-empting the current scandal by not speaking about these incidents when discussing homosexual marriage. But this would not be in and by itself something that condemns the man.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
If this goes beyond the pale, I am happy for the Host to delete it.
I wish to make a comment about the timing of the complaint. I made the point that enough time has gone by for the protest/complaint to be made, and asked 'why now'?
I would further want suggest that the opportune moment was in fact given to one of the complainants - on the day he resigned his priesthood in response to Fr O'Brien becoming Bishop O'Brien.
That would have been the time to complain.
I simply cannot and do not believe that there was not one single person in the church who would have listened to a priest who complained about another priest making improper suggestions to him.
If he didn't complain then, what is his purpose in complaining now? It's not like the Cardinal has broken a law. Why do we assume that this is not spite? How do we know these ex-priests are indeed telling the truth?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
What if not being heard until recently wasn't the complainants' fault? What if the complainant/s had been trying to be heard for many years but he/she/they had been brushed off by the church until recently?
[ 26. February 2013, 13:03: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
an intelligent comment on this issue in today's blogpost of iBenedictines here .
That article was praising "ordinary Catholics"; a sentiment I want to endorse. By contrast, a spokesman for the Vatican appeared on Channel 4 News last night. He was educated, intelligent and deeply patronising (he basically told Jon Snow, "Go off and play with your technology, and leave the serious thinking to us") and I've seen other such figures over the years, when similar accusations are made. People like that, it seems to me, do the RCC real damage. Why can't you have someone saying, "We don't yet know if these accusations are true or not but, if they are, deep harm has been caused, which we weep over"? Why can't the official spokesmen show compassion, rather than slick talking?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Mudfrog
In general, counselling and pastoral care experience teaches us that people who have been on the receiving end of any kind of dominant/abusive behaviour are nearly always cowed by it, bent out of shape in terms of self-belief and self-confidence. Delays in talking about their experiences to anyone are very normal. Even after that, making allegations to a higher authority may never happen, or there may be significant further delay in taking that step. And obstacles in the way.
I know personally of cases where the delay has been more than a quarter of a century. Delay does not mean that there is no need for due and fair process. Delay does have some impact on the reliability of testimony. All human beings, regardless of their consistency and standards of personal honesty, edit their own history.
I think there are grounds for concern over the fairness to the accused of much-delayed investigations and/or legal actions, particularly when cases lack any evidence other than personal testimony. I suppose one might argue that if more than one witness comes forward, that proves something. But bandwagon effects and witch hunts can be fostered by pre-trial publicity. It's a tricky area.
Of course due processes can be manipulated by accusers and I know of cases where this has happened. In general it is not safe to read too much into coincidences of timing. We don't know enough facts to put two and two together with any degree of assurance, or any confidence that we are being fair.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
