In Defense of Cardinal Keith O'brien, Sort of

By Robert Mickens
Global Pulse
March 24, 2015

http://www.globalpulsemagazine.com/preview/in-defense-of-cardinal-keith-obrien-sort-of/980

Scottish Cardinal Keith O'Brien

There are good reasons why Cardinal Keith Michael Patrick O'Brien of Scotland should have participated in the last Conclave.

(I'll get to that in a minute.)

Instead, he resigned as archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh just before the papal election got underway. Four men had gone public and accused him of pressuring them into having sex years ago when they were junior priests (one was actually an adult seminarian). The papers ran wild with the story and the cardinal could no longer deny it.

“I… admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal,” he finally confessed publicly on March 3, 2013, before going into seclusion.

Last Friday, a full two years later and following a Vatican “investigation,” a note from Rome announced that Cardinal O'Brien had freely relinquished “the rights and privileges” — but, bizarrely, not the title — of a being a cardinal. Even weirder, Church officials said he could continue wearing his cardinal attire, but only in private.

The 77-year-old cardinal (or should we now call him “titular cardinal” or “cardinal emeritus”?) thus forfeited the most important privilege and duty that comes with the red hat — voting in a conclave (he did participate in the one that elected Benedict XVI in 2005).

Naturally, there is a question of whether O'Brien jumped or was pushed. And most sensible people have already figured that out. But there are other more perplexing issues surrounding this strange “resignation.” Grant Gallicho gives this a good treatment at Commonweal Magazine, where he's an associate editor.

However, there are a couple of aspects of this entire affair that no one seems to be touching. The first one is homosexuality in the priesthood.

For far too long this has been the elephant in the rectory parlor.

I know.

And a lot of other people also know that Keith O'Brien is not the only cardinal that has been sexually active during his priesthood.

And he is not the only one that has been sexually involved with other men.

(As it was in the beginning, is now and — more than likely — ever shall be…)

Had he been at the 2013 conclave he could have looked several of his red-robed confreres who have also “fallen below the standards” directly in the eyes.

This is not to justify his conduct, but rather to say that the hypocrisy must end.

Incredibly, there are still priests and bishops that would deny or profess not to know that there are any homosexually-oriented men in the ordained ministry — even those that have remained chastely celibate. Are they willfully ignorant or just blatantly dishonest?

Cardinal O'Brien and many other priests and bishops that have engaged in sex with men would probably not even identify themselves as being gay. They are products of a clerical caste and a priestly formation system that discourages and, in some places, even forbids them from being honest about their homosexual orientation.

Sadly, many of these men are or have become self-loathing and homophobic. Some of them emerge as public moralizers and denouncers of homosexuality, especially of the evil perpetrated on society by the so-called “gay lobby.” Unfortunately, Cardinal O'Brien was, at times, one of the more brazen among them.

The Vatican knows all too well that there are large numbers of priests and seminarians with a homosexual orientation. But rather than encourage a healthy discussion about how gays can commit themselves to celibate chastity in a wholesome way, the Church’s official policies and teachings drive such men even deeper into the closet.

And like any other dark place lacking sunlight and air, this prevents normal development and festers mold, dankness, distortion and disease. Nothing kept in the dark can become healthy or flourish.

As recently as 2005, just a few months after the election of Benedict XVI, the Vatican issued a document that reinforced the “stay in the closet” policy by saying men who identified as gay should not be admitted to seminaries.

And, yet, despite such attempts there are gay priests that have found a way to wholesome self-acceptance of their sexuality. Some of them are sexually active, but many live celibately. Arguably, they are among the best and most compassionate pastors we have in our Church.

Their more conflicted gay confreres — and all gay people, indeed the entire Church — would benefit greatly if these healthy gay priests could openly share their stories. But their bishops or religious superiors have forbidden them from writing or speaking publicly about this part of their lives.

This too, only encourages more dishonesty and perpetuates a deeply flawed system that will continue to produces unhealthy priests.

Such priests are products of the system, but not necessarily victims of it.

And this brings up a second aspect of the Cardinal O'Brien affair; namely, the conflation of his actions with that of clerical sex abuse.

The cardinal has admitted that he was sexually active with adults even before he became a bishop in 1985. But there has been no suggestion that he ever sexually preyed on minors.

Furthermore, three of the men that publicly accused him of sexual misconduct are apparently gay priests. One of them reportedly had been in a long-term relationship with O'Brien at some point. The other, an ex-seminarian whom the cardinal groped late one night, is now married. He was traumatized by the incident, but he rebuffed the advance and the future cardinal seems to have never tried it again.

Some of the things these men accused him of doing to them certainly fall under the category of sexual harassment. And because these occurred with people in his charge when he was a seminary official or bishop, these actions constitute an abuse of power.

But this should not be confused with the sexual abuse of minors, which some people have deliberately tried to do.

There are many factors that allowed Cardinal O'Brien to act as he did for so long and with seeming impunity. But deep down the most pernicious of them all are rooted in the clericalist culture (and closet) of denial, secrecy and power.