Rorate Caeli

The Electors - Update:
Cardinal O'Brien resigns and will miss the Conclave

Well, following years of being attacked by the media for defending the only possible concept of marriage, being the new sweetheart of the British press lasted for only a couple of days for Cardinal O'Brien, who resigned today following allegations of inappropriate behavior and is not going to the Conclave anymore.  (Bollettino publication)

Yes, Cardinal-Electors should not be submitted to undue "pressure", but perhaps they should keep their hip, "modern", opinions meant to shock ordinary Catholics to themselves, and other Cardinal-Electors might consider following the lead of Cardinal O'Brien if their presence in the conclave will shame the Holy Roman Church. And, no, once again the married priesthood, or anti-apostolic post-ordination marriage, would not have prevented this mess.

It seems unlikely that O'Brien would have resigned (or been asked to resign) so promptly - making the 2013 conclave the first one since 1958 without a representative from England, Wales, or Scotland - without concrete evidence against him in the allegations, forwarded by the Apostolic Nuncio to Rome in early February, before the papal renunciation announcemment.

[Update: as it can be seen in the Osservatore publication above, the Pope accepted the resignation on February 18, 2013. The British press reported that the accusations came to the knowledge of the Apostolic Nuncio in the United Kingdom before the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, which is also implied by the date above, merely one week after the papal declaration - therefore, the accusations cannot be construed as an attempt by the accusers to influence the conclave in any way.]


John Fisher said...

What about Mahoney? He should resign as well!

Benedict Carter said...

"One down, several to go" was my initial (uncharitable) thought.

What a complete and utter humiliation for the Church, for the Pope, for all the Faithful.

Wake up England said...

You mean he got the sack?

Barbara said...

It is simply awful that there will be no-one representing the Church in the UK at the conclave!

Has the big clean-up begun? Now who will be next?

So sorry for the Church in the practically godless UK though, so very sorry...

I'm depressed - had better go and pray...

Benedict Carter said...

Barbara said:

"It is simply awful that there will be no-one representing the Church in the UK at the conclave!"

I can't agree with that at all Barbara. Our Bishops are so utterly in the hands of the homo-heseriarchs and so Modernist that it's a damn good thing that we are not represented.

be a very good thing if there were no French, Swiss, Germans or Austrians there either.

scary goat said...

Afraid I have to agree with you, Ben. Not pointing fingers at anyone, but our whole culture/society here is so far off track, we don't deserve to be represented. We need to be told what to do...not have any input in deciding what to do.

Tom said...

Barbara said..."I'm depressed - had better go and pray..."

Yes, pray. But Barabara, please don't be depressed. Holy Mother Church has, at times, experienced greater chaos than that which has engulfed us today.

Imagine if we had been alive when a bishop betrayed Jesus Christ? Or when our first Pope denied Jesus Christ.

Imagine having lived during the lengthy period when Arianism had shipwrecked the Church? Our relatively few orthodox brothers and sisters during that time had to muster every ounce of faith just to have believed that the Church would survive in any form.

We have experienced times that featured utterly awful Popes...The Great Western Schism...the Church's terrible collapse during the time of the Reformation.

Times have been much worse for Holy Mother Church than today.

Barbara, you will be fine.


Benedict Carter said...

Hello Scary! Great to see you.

I have learned a great deal from some of the very knowledgeable people here. The contributions are of a wholly different order of intelligence and knowledge from the Catholic Herald and I do hope you stick around.

Yes, the Church in Britain needs to be lead and has no right to a voice in its current shape.

One has to say that O'Brien's exclusion from the Conclave has the feel of Divine Providence about it. Let's hope Our Lord has similar plans in mind for Mahoney, Dolan, Daly and others.

info said...

The latest news from the BBC is this. "The Scottish Catholic Church says the cardinal, who is 74 and was due to retire in a few weeks, contests the claims and is taking legal advice."

Matthew H said...

For those asking "what about Cardinal Mahoney?", it's probably worth pointing out that Cardinal O'Brien has resigned his position as Archbishop of St Andrews & Edinburgh, but freely chosen not to attend the conclave. He has resigned from his diocese, not the College of Cardinals. He can still attend the conclave, because it is his right as a Cardinal; he is just choosing not to exercise that right because he "do[es] not wish media attention in Rome to be focussed" on him. (Note also that he had already submitted his resignation as Archbishop in November 2012, which would have taken effect on March 17th anyway. It's just that the Pope decided it would take effect today instead.)

Cardinal Mahoney is already retired, being as he is Archbishop-emeritus of Los Angeles. The difference is that Cardinal Mahoney has freely chosen to exercise his rights as a Cardinal and attend the conclave, media attention or no media attention. Whether it is right that Cardinal Mahoney either a) goes to the conclave or b) is still a Cardinal is a different (albeit related) question.

N.b. This comment is an attempt at clarification, and in no way to be taken as an endorsement or defence of Cardinals Mahoney or O'Brien. Personally, in Cardinal Mahoney's case, I think he should have resigned his membership of the College some time ago; the jury is still out on Cardinal O'Brien.

Fr Seán Coyle said...

Barbara, I think you mean that no one representing the Church in Britain will be at the conclave. The seat of the Archdiocese of Armagh, Where Cardinal Bray is archbishop, is in the UK, part of the archdiocese being in Northern Ireland and part in the Republic of Ireland. Britain is only part of the UK, not the whole of it.

Prof. Basto said...

I would very much like to see O'Brien excluded from the Conclave, but, I'm left wondering. It is said that Card. O'Brien will take no part in the Conclave. But the other day, in an official Vatican Press Conference on the norms of Universi Dominici Gregis, Fr. Lombardi and the Bishop Secretary of the Pontifical Council on the Interpretation of Legislative Texts reminded us that the participation in the Conclave is not only a right but also a duty for Cardinals; that they are summoned and must appear in virtue of sacred obedience; that the law commands them to come unless absolutely impeded; that even in case of infirmity the excuse presented must be evaluated by the College; that even excommunicated Cardinals vote (e.g., a Cardinal that retains the Cardinalate because he was not deposed, but that is under an undeclared excommunication, remains a Cardinal elector).

Then, if Cardinal O'Brien recognizes that he should not participate in the Conclave, does it mean that he has also resigned the Cardinalate? Has a resignation of the Cardinalate been accepted? If none has been offered, will Cardinal O'Brien tender his resignation as a Cardinal? If not, how can he go ahead with his promise not to take part in the Conclave, without violating his summons from the College of Cardinals?

Ted Maysfield said...

Notice the timing of the expose and then the resignation.

The battle to elect the next pope is shaping up and this generally conservative cardinal (contra abortion and sodomy) is now maneuvered out of the voting.

Athelstane said...

Hello NC,

I see that I commented on the new Vatileaks post without seeing that you had updated this older post with the news about O'Brien's resignation. Feel free to ignore or delete it.

Rorate has been a tremendous resource during this lead-up to the conclave, thanks especially to your efforts. Please keep up the great work.

"...making the 2013 conclave the first one since 1958 without a representative from England, Wales, or Scotland.

And given the state of the episcopate of England, Wales, and Scotland, we can only say: This is entirely fitting.

There are really only two ordinaries that I would even want to see voting in the conclave (in Portmouth and Shrewsbury), and neither of them have red hats (alas). The hard job of rebuilding the British episcopate was only barely begun under Benedict XVI. His successor will have his work cut out for him.

Joseph Shaw said...

The lack of representation of England, Wales, and Scotland is really the very least of our concerns. Cardinals don't 'represent' their countries, anyway, they are their in their capacity as priests of Rome, with their titular churches.

One part of the United Kingdom is, in fact, under the oversight of a Cardinal who will be in the Conclave: Cardinal Brady, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland.

JabbaPapa said...

His opinions concerning married priests are licit personal ones -- but he has apparently opined in favour of women priests, which is a straightforward heresy ; and the complaints made against him by those four clergy seem to have been accepted by our Pope.

What a sad end !!

De facto, the Catholic Church of the UK no longer has one single Cardinal !!!

It's time to sweep aside the practices of the past, and elevate such men as Bishop Egan, instead of continuing to pander to the uncatholic desires of the homosexualist Establishment.

LA said...

Yet the pimp of the pedophiles from Los Angeles gets to vote?

Investigator said...

How can this be a paragraph 1 resignation if Card. O'Brien is not yet 75? A deliberate distortion of the truth?

New Catholic said...

More likely a mistake in a step of the procedure.

NBW said...

Mahoney should not be allowed to vote.

Gregory said...

What? Cardinal O'Brien has previously opined in favour of women priests? When? Is there any citation for this?

Ora et Labora said...

In regards to Cardinal O'Brien and if all I have read is true well I say good riddance!!!

Richard M. Sawicki said...

Mea Culpa! Mea Culpa! Mea Maxima Culpa!

I regret having been taken in by O'Brien's outspoken defense of Marriage in the past. It looks like it was a case of a man "who protesteth too much"!

I feel bad for the Redemptorists of Papa Strosnay in the Orkney's, who have lionized "our fearless Cardinal O'Brien" on their website in the past. It must truly hurt them to hear this.

Oh well, one less hypocrite we'll have to deal with!

I will be praying extra hard for the Scottish Church today!

St. Andrew, ora pro nobis!

Gaudete in Domino Semper!

Drew said...

Yes I have a little hard on Cardinal O'Brien because of his recent "priests can get married" statement. But at least he had made the honorable act of recusing himself at the next conclave.

But Cardinal Mahoney? Are you kidding me? This guy doesn't have any conscience (well-formed or otherwise) nor shame at all! He seeks the limelight to himself all the time and blames everything else for his misfortune but himself. Maybe just maybe he is still dreaming that he might just get elected as Pope (with Daneels as his vice-pope). What a disgrace to the Church!!!

Gregory said...

Forgive me for having a slow time reconciling all this.

Until just three days ago, I had Cardinal O'Brien marked down as one of us. Well, okay, fair enough, he wasn't exactly rushing to celebrate the EF but he seemed to be doctrinally sound.

So much so that when I heard a news bulletin on Friday night, declaring that the Cardinal intended to vote for a non-European Pope, my immediate thought was that he might even be a Cardinal Ranjith supporter (well, one can dream).

I did think it a bit gauche that he had publicly declared such a pre-Conclave detail to the medias, but I certainly had hopes that he'd be voting for a doctrinally solid man, a Traditionalist even.

Because, until Friday, that was the view that I had of Cardinal O'Brien (so-called "Bigot of the Year" last year, an award bestowed on him by "Stonewall").

I was then shocked on Saturday to hear that he'd suddenly spoken out in favour of married priests (that just didn't chime with his previous communiques) and it rather reminded me of Obama and Cameron's sudden volte face positions on homosexual marriages some time in mid-2012 (also Iain Duncan Smith's sudden 180˚ on the same issue, completely contradicting the previous perceptions that he liked to portray of himself).

But now, not only do I find that the Cardinal may (stress) have been guilty of inappropriate acts many decades ago (I'm not shocked by that, but only in so far as I'm no longer "shockable" [I don't think so, anyway] and sadly I'm primed to hear the worst about any [stress] priest, such are the times we live and pray in) but I'm now speed-learning a different reality that, apparently, he's been a wrong-un all along.


Pro-women priests?

Other commenters saying that if what they've read about him is true then "good riddance"?

Have I been asleep for the last decade?

When did it become such common acceptance that Cardinal O'Brien was pretty much flaky across the board?

I can assure you, I'm not in denial here (and if the accusations against him are true, then I'd like to think that the process used to expose him was akin to that laid out by Fr Dariusz Oko).

It's more a case that I'm now beginning to doubt my ability to discern the good guys from the bad ones.

Genuinely, until Friday, I thought he was pretty solid.

Barbara said...

Well, Benedict what I meant was that there was no one representing the Church in the UK not necessarily Cardinal O'Brien, but as Father Coyle informed me there is Cardinal Bray from Armagh in Northern Ireland.(Thank you Father!) And as you and many others have said Cardinal O'Brien would not have been a good representative - a real thumbs down after his latest utterances on married priests and women priests. It makes me sick at heart though, to see such high Churchmen betraying Our Lord and the people entrusted to them!

I would also just like to say that my ecclesiatical reality is different somewhat from so many of you here on the blog as regards this "homolobby" thing in the Church. I know nothing of it where I live - and I have been asking a lot of serious Catholics this past week about it and they know nothing of it HERE either.

So are we all out to lunch - or burying our heads in the sand? I would say not.

Totally incomprehensible to me that this "thing" exists.


Thank you, Tom, for your kind and encouraging words. I have a lot to sort out in my coconut - and prayer is always my best medicine.


LeonG said...


There can be no clean up in UK until the church there returns to its basic foundations. All that is happening now is attritional. The homosexual elements have been gaining in strength and influence certainly since the 1970s when I was confronted with it among certain Dominicans in Edinburgh at that time. Indulgent superiors and liberal prebyters have done the rest.

We need to see a restoration of vocations using traditional methods of priestly formation but accounting for modern social conditions. This means priests also need protection from potentially compromising social situations unique to this libertarian era. Once we have this in place and a few good solid episcopal appointments with similar synmpathies then the Roman Catholic Church in UK will be restored and be beneficially influential again on a nationwide basis.

scary goat said...

I think it is all so shocking and sad. The saddest thing of all is that these allegations weren't sorted out a long time ago. In a way I can't help feeling sorry for the poor chap. To have past indiscretions (?) catch up on you in such a public way, quite probably donkey's years after he has repented of them, isn't a nice way to go. I can take an educated guess as to why it wasn't sorted out before....and it's not just the "lavender mafia" although that may possibly be a part of it. It is a dangerous situation when people are afraid to speak out when something has gone wrong. Skeletons in cupboards tend to burst back out at some point later. I can't help wondering if his comment on married priests is somehow connected....maybe a regret. He seems to have worded it rather carelessly though. Priests marrying after ordination is not a good suggestion, amongst other things it would of course set back our relations with the Orthodox. I assume no-one would take such a suggestion seriously, but it could raise false hopes in some quarters.

LeonG said...


I still think Cardinal O’Brien could be innocent. This particular issue appears attritional – the trouble is that the homosexual and sodomite lobby has unprecedented power and influence. It can do almost what it pleases now and it has legal reinforcement as a protected minority. The church in the UK has pandered to it so much recently that the episcopate is open to any accusation at all. The current climate being what it is ecclesiastically also militates against the church in these matters. Immediate reactions are usually based on assumptions of guilt. Unfortunately, the innocent until prven guilty norm no longer appears to applyn in these times.

Jay said...

Gregory @17:55, I think still Cardinal O'Brien is solid, as to the can always be 'edited' some words removed - what he 'said' sounds a bit incoherent which made me to come to this conclusion. I would do not trust BBC reports too much.

Anonymous said...

So, no Cardinal will represent the UK.

How very fitting.


gtaylor said...

Allegations aside ( and I still wonder why it has taken 4 men 30 or so years to raise this), any "prince" of the Church who remodels their Cathedral so that the only entrance is shared with a bistro bar is a disaster.
St Pat's in New York, Notre Dame in Paris? can you imagine???

New Catholic said...

Well, as said above, the Primate of Ireland (despite protests to the contrary) should be there, and he represents at least a part of the UK, where his see is located. This is why we mentioned only E, W, and S in the post.


scary goat said...

gtaylor wondered why it has taken 4 men 30 years to raise this. One might imagine that reporting sexual misconduct to a superior would be welcomed so as to keep the Church clean...not so, I'm afraid. If you try reporting a priest for sexual misconduct you will not be warmly received. People know this (and these were priests/seminarians themselves so probably knew even more so than a naive lay person.) It doesn't surprise me in the least when these allegations surface donkey's years later. That is the problem when you try to sweep muck under the carpet and pretend the house is clean...later it will start to stink.

RJHighland said...

I am just wondering that after Pope Benedict XVI drops the Vatileaks report on the Cardinals at the Conclave whether there will be a mass exodus of many of the Cardinals that may have been involved in the sexual abuse cases and information of homosexual activates on certain Cardinals. It is long overdue to clean house, it is going to get ugly before a new dawn for the Church is seen. As Bishop Fellay said the Church has much larger issues to deal with at this time in history than the SSPX, and homosexuals in the episcopate is a huge problem not only in dirty deeds but in the credibility of the Church. These men were elevated by Pope's. This must be cleaned up quickly and decisively. If it is not there will be no credibility left. Some have stated that the Church has seen darker days. I don’t know this will rank up there pretty high if not greater than some of the issues like Arianism. As I understand that was only 2/3rds of the Bishops of the Church and one Pope (Liberius). This when looked back on could be over 90% of the Church and 4 Popes, that’s pretty big historically speaking. Anybody hear the story of the man praying a novena to Pope John Paul II for the healing of his wife and on the last day of the Novena he has a vision of a haggard Pope John Paul II who told him to pray to Pius XII. After praying to Pius XII his wife was miraculously healed. As far as I know this miracle has been officially attributed to the cause of the Canonization of Pius XII. At this point I could careless if there is a shortage of Bishops and Priests if only the Church would clean this lethal infection from its numbers and start a new era of holy priests and hierarchy we are the laughing stock of the world because of these men, what a mess. Abp. Lefebvre is looking more like a saint everyday compared to his brother bishops. Oh just a side note Abp. Lefebvre was elevated bishop during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.

Prof. Basto said...

Cardinal O’Brien says he is not showing up. And I believe him. And I’m all in favour of him having no part in the Conclave. If you ask my opinion, his resignation as Archbishop is insufficient. He should have been deprived of the Cardinalate. And an emergency consistory should have been held today just for the pope to announce either his resignation from the Cardinalate or his deposition from the Sacred College. But, alas, Cardinal O’Brien remains a Cardinal of H.R.C. He, however, vows not to take part in the Conclave.

However, just the other day, during a Press Conference about Universi Dominici Gregis, the Bishop Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts reminded us all that the Cardinal electors not only have the right to vote, it is their duty “in virtue of sacred obedience”, to comply with the summons and go to take part in the Conclave.

So, are we to understand that what Cardinal O’Brien is saying is that he will receive a summons from the Dean of the College of Cardinals, convoking him to the Conclave in virtue of holy obedience, and that he, in posession of that letter of summons, will disregard it, and ignore the summons, thereby commiting yet another violation of ecclesiastical law?

Or will O’Brien attempt to formalize his situation and obtain leave not to appear, by invoking an impediment under article 38 of Universi Dominici Gregis (an article that was left in place untouched after today’s reform)? Article 38 of UDG states:

“38. All the Cardinal electors, convoked for the election of the new Pope by the Cardinal Dean, or by another Cardinal in his name, are required, in virtue of holy obedience, to obey the announcement of convocation and to proceed to the place designated for this purpose, unless they are hindered by sickness or by some other grave impediment, which however must be recognized as such by the College of Cardinals.”

So, under that norm should Cardinal attempt to excuse himself by ivoking “some other grave impediment”, that reason given for the absence will have to be discussed by the Cardinals in one of the preparatory General Congregations, and in order for the Cardinal to be excused from attendance, the impediment invoked needs to be recognized as such by the College of Cardinals.

In the above mentioned press conference, the Bishop Secretary of the PCILT explained that, if the Cardinals do not agree that the reason given is a just cause, then they wirte to the prelate again, stating that his impediment was not recognized as a just cause, and insisting on his appearence for the Conclave.

Cardinal Darmaatmadja , who is sick, will surely follow the procedure described in article 38 and the College of Cardinals is expected to grant him leave of absence from the Conclave. However, will Cardinal O’Brian follow the procedure of article 38 and argue that his present situation constitutes a species of “other grave impediment” justifying absence?

(to be continued)

Prof. Basto said...


Which considerations lead us to the question of the date for the start of the Conclave.

If the procedure of article 38 is followed by Cardinal O’Brien and leave of absence is given, then it is my opinion that, from that point on, the Cardinals no longer need to wait for him. When leave of absence is granted, the Cardinal has formaly and given notice that he will not appear in Conclave, and this has been legally accepted by the College.

However, if leave of absence is asked for, and the Cardinals refuse it, by reaching the conclusion that the motive given is not a “grave impediment” within the meaning of the law, then the Cardinal must be informed of the decision and must be given time to attend. To be more precise: if a Cardinal is refused leave of absence and is compelled to attend, then the College must wait the full 15 days to see if the Cardinal will comply with the demand. Even if the Cardinal continues to say – defying the decision of the College to refuse the leave of absence – that he is not going, then, because of the gravity of such continued refusal to obey, the College should wait the full 15 days.

Also, if Cardinal O’Brien elects not to follow the procedure of article 38, that is, if the Cardinal asks for no leave of absence, and gives no formal notice of his intention not to appear in Conclave, then, in my opinion, the College of Cardinals cannot take notice of his informal statements to the effect that he is not going. Formally and juridically, he will still receive a letter of summons from the Cardinal Dean, and under article 38 he will be required by the bonds of sacred obedience to attend the Conclave. Therefore, in the absence of a formal request for a leave of absence, the College should assume that he is coming as the law requires, and should wait for him the full 15 days.

In other words, the conclusion of my opinion is that the Conclave can start early even with Cardinal electors not in attendance, but provided that such absent Cardinals have obtained formal leave of absence under article 38 of UDG.

Without the formality of the leave of absence, it cannot be assumed that they will fail to comply with the OBLIGATION to appear, and the Church then needs to wait for them for 15 days from the start of the Sede Vacante.

Prof. Basto said...

RJHighland writes "I am just wondering that after Pope Benedict XVI drops the Vatileaks report on the Cardinals at the Conclave..."

This will not happen.

It had been reported that the pope would ask the Vatileaks Commission to disclose their Report to the Cardinals during the preparatory General Congregations of the College in the days of the Sede Vacante prior to the start of the Conclave, but now the Pope has decided otherwise.

He has decreed that the Report, under Pontifical Secret, will be for the future Pope's eyes only.

RJHighland said...

Prof. Basto,

Yeah I read that article after I posted. They are probably stored next to the Fatima files. I think that is sad but I am sure it was done after much prayer. I think the guilty parties know who they are and their time is short so hopefully they look toward eternity and not their personal faith. I pray while these Cardinals are on holy ground they are guided by the Holy Ghost and not the Spirit of Vatican II.

Matt said...

Why would O'Brien renounce his See just because things got ugly? I never understood this humility routine worrying about bad press and all the blah-blah which may occur. If there really is no foul play involved, fight for right. Leaving only gives the enemies the handle they need to further do their dirty work. In effect, this lets them win!

John Fisher said...

I think if the accusations of 30 years ago are true then Cardinal O'Brien's denunciation of homosexuality is even more persuasive. If a drug user stops using drugs and tells us not to go near drugs, or a reformed drunkard says keep away from drink we usually listen and think them very brave. I hope O'Brien has not lied. His resignation is brave but how do Mahoney and Law have the vanity not to resign as well? What they did involved covering up the abuse of teens and youth. What about making the pro "gay" clergy resign too?

Bill Meyer said...

All the wailing and gnashing of teeth is a bit odd. This resignation is a blessing for the Church, as a clearly bad actor removes himself from the field. As to representation, the Holy Spirit represents us all.

For those of us who are so quick to condemn, perhaps we should look first to the planks in our own eyes?

scary goat said...

John Fisher: Yes I agree. That was exactly what I had in mind when I said maybe he has some regrets. Maybe he tried something, and felt the wrong of it, and like any decent person tried to stop others from making the same mistake. Maybe he also felt he wasn't "born that way" rather it may have been weakness and desperation that he felt was exacerbated by the lack of a "normal" outlet. Maybe this is why he mentioned married priests, also in some attempt to save others from falling into the same trap. A lot is talked these days about homosexuals being attracted to the priesthood....(it is also the current trend to see homosexuals as born that way). I am no expert, but I wonder if there is another question not being asked: can sexual repression cause deviant behaviour? I am guessing Richard Sipe might not be the most popular author on a traditional site, but he does have some quite interesting things to say about the abuse scandal. Of course there is the difference between the psychological view and the faith view. The idea of devoting oneself solely to God and His work should contain an element of self restraint one would have thought. I do wonder about the "faith element" in some of these modern views, but at the same time I don't think it's fair to call him a hypocrite. I think the comments of some that he seemed like a good man are probably correct.

Jay said...

All this affair (victims reporting alleged crime) strangely coincides with hasty pushing through the House of Commons of infamous same sex marriage bill. How convenient to remove outspoken defender of Church teaching like him from the scene. I strongly recommend prayers for Cardinal O'Brien, I can only imagine what it is to him if he is innocent!!

gtaylor said...

I said I wondered why it took 4 men 30 years or so to make these allegations.
One left the ministerial priesthood many years ago, where was his fear of his "boss".
I think it is a legitimate question and that three priests imply the worst, where was their responsibility towards the young???
Their timing is interesting.

gtaylor said...

A few facts about sexual abuse:- It is widespread throughout society and within the clergy thankfully it is a very small percentage. The highest percentages are in the married men category.

Matamoros said...

The SSPX must be very happy it missed the cruise of a lifetime that set sail on the 22nd of February. HMS Vat II is certainly visiting some exotic places along the Dead Sea, but the SSPX is happy where it is, with feet firmly planted on the banks of the River Tiber.

Chesterton would seem to be of the same mind:
There are two ways of getting home; and one them is to stay there. The other is to walk round the whole world till we come back to the same place."

scary goat said...

Yes, indeed, the more I think about it, the more strange the timing seems. I am aware that there is more abuse outside the Church than in, I didn't suggest otherwise, although I do think the Church hasn't handled abuse cases well. In general I am not surprised by allegations surfacing much later, but yes this does seem odd. I'm not quite sure what is the point when he was about to retire soon anyway.

gtaylor said...

The Cardinal has left in disgrace and humiliation.
What was the three/four priests motivation for this?
Do they believe the teachings of the Church? Or is there an agenda here?
Troubling times.
Perhaps now the faithful can get their Cathedral(in Edinburgh) cleansed of the disgrace of the entrance being shared with a bistro bar, that would be a start in getting back to reverence and awe.
I live in hope. A bishop who teaches ( the catholic faith) from his chair, that would be welcome.
A bishop who ensures that tabernacles in parish churches are restored to the sanctuary and not like all too many questionable clergymen who have moved The Lord to a side alter. Their arrogance is astounding.