Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Tim Whitmarsh

GET UPDATES FROM Tim Whitmarsh
 

Keith O'Brien, Catholicism and Sexuality

Posted: 04/03/2013 08:32

I don't want to join the queue of ill-wishers wagging fingers at Keith O'Brien, the fallen leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland. The poor man is surely experiencing that kind of hell on earth that only Catholic guilt can generate. His whole life, in fact, must have been lived in varying degrees of torment. It's worth remembering that - quite apart from any religious abhorrence - homosexuality was illegal for the first 29 years or so of his life. It's impossible for most of us to imagine the levels of fear and anxiety.

He will, certainly, be judged for his abuse of the status he held, for the supplying of alcohol to lower inhibitions, and for putting young men vowed to celibacy in a grievous predicament. These are weighty charges, and arguably - because of the abuse of trust - even weightier than those levelled at that other alleged predator of the day, Chris Rennard. If the police are looking into Rennard's behaviour, it may be only a matter of time before O'Brien's door is firmly rapped upon. Yet despite the gravity of the allegations, the former cardinal deserves sympathy too. Unlike Rennard, who is straight and married, he was trapped in a public role that forbids any form of expression of desire, requited or otherwise.

The fact remains, however, that the Catholic Church faces a huge credibility deficit in the matter of sexuality. The saddest thing about the whole sorry story is that there is no indication that it is in any way confronting the huge ethical challenges it faces. Instead it seems to be using its traditional tactic of silencing awkward voices; willing them, in effect, into repression. One of the complainants, who has now left the clergy, has spoken to the Observer about the cold disapproval: 'I have felt very alone', he says, citing the 'cold disapproval of the Church hierarchy for daring to break ranks. I feel like if they could crush me, they would'.

Keith O'Brien's own statement, in fact, betrays much of the same fear of cold disapproval. It's deeply conflicted. On the one hand, you can sense the anguish of a real human being facing up to himself. Catholicism is centrally about confession. I do believe that O'Brien is doing his level best to confront his demons, at the personal level. But it's also, tragically, overshadowed, and compromised, by that characteristically Catholic instinct to repress. It feels harsh to say it, but the statement looks like a (self?) deception.

'In recent days', O'Brien writes, 'certain allegations which have been made against me have become public. Initially, their anonymous and non-specific nature led me to contest them.' The specific allegations were made to the papal nuncio on 9 February; they were made public by the Observer on the 22nd, at which point O'Brien began his vigorous denial. It seems highly implausible that noone in the hierarchy had thought to inform him of the details by that stage. But even if it's true that the only accusations he knew of at that point were non-specific ones, that's no defence at all. He was, by his own admission, fully aware that there had been specific incidents; he was in no position to deny the charge at the non-specific level.

The phrasing actually mirrors that used by Nick Clegg in the aftermath of the Rennard scandal: he similarly distinguished between the 'indirect and non-specific concerns' he knew of in 2007 and the 'direct' accusations that Channel 4 brought forward. Whoever advised O'Brien to take Clegg's handling of the Rennard affair as a model of political cunning might have a long look at him- or herself.

But O'Brien's disingenuousness isn't just borrowed political rhetoric. It reflects an institutionalised culture within the Catholic Church: everything to do with sexuality is swept under the carpet. In fact, the former cardinal was himself a victim of this. As recently as 2003, in the aftermath of his appointment as cardinal, he expressed an open mind on contraception, female priests and clerical marriage - only to be slapped down by the unforgiving hierarchy. I suspect that Keith O'Brien knows as well as anyone that the Catholic Church's stance on sexuality as a whole is destructive and unsustainable.

The new Pope, whoever he is, will have a huge rebuilding task in front of him. In the West at least, it's leaking public confidence by the gallon. One can only hope that the lucky conclave winner draws the right lessons from the O'Brien affair. The ethical battles humanity faces are economic, environmental and political; sexuality, on the other hand, needs to be understood and embraced, rather than battled against.

 
 
 

Follow Tim Whitmarsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/twhittermarsh

FOLLOW UK LIFESTYLE
I don't want to join the queue of ill-wishers wagging fingers at Keith O'Brien, the fallen leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland. The poor man is surely experiencing that kind of hell on earth tha...
I don't want to join the queue of ill-wishers wagging fingers at Keith O'Brien, the fallen leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland. The poor man is surely experiencing that kind of hell on earth tha...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 53
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
03:44 AM on 03/07/2013
Sorry for garbled post - writing on iPad, just before lift-off. 'O itch' = 'to do with'
06:51 PM on 03/06/2013
He seems well suited to talk about homosexual marriage, I don't see the hypocrisy. The issue is whether he should have accepted the added responsibility of being a bishop and cardinal? I have to admit I once sent him a humble email critical of the Church and he had the courtesy to send a polite reply. I was impressed.
12:26 PM on 03/06/2013
i am sick and tired of people feeling sorry for others that consitently divide and debaise themselves with unessary acts of sexual behaviour to those that have in their charge..
the priests and most of those holding in power seem corrupt unhelpful judgemental and lacking in being able to uphold the true values of the church and what it stands for.
People are turning away from the church in there thousands religious groups are continualy asking themeselves were are the true followers and lovers of christ because it is obovious to normal people they do not exsit in this world today ..the leaders are letting down normal everyday people and ruling the church with bias outadated dogma thats completely false and unhelpful in the world today

I do not trust the church or its teaching and i dont think im the only one eithier
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Simon Stylites
Dreamer, reader, writer, fool.
11:17 PM on 03/05/2013
In recent writings one would have thought that homosexuality and celibacy were the new litmus tests of Christianity.

Jesus is clearly much more concerned about issues of pride, injustice, hypocrisy, blindness, and "The Three Ps" of power, prestige, and possessions, which are probably 95% of Jesus' written teaching. We conveniently ignore this 95% to concentrate on a morality that usually has to do with human embodiment.

The body seems to be where we carry our sense of shame and inferiority, and early-stage religion has never gotten much beyond these "pelvic" issues.

As Jesus put it, "You ignore the weightier matters of the law-justice, mercy, and good faith . . . and instead you strain out gnats and swallow camels" (Matthew 23:23-24).

We worry about what people are doing in bed much more than making sure everybody has a bed to begin with.

Christianity will regain its moral authority when it starts emphasizing social sin in equal measure with individual (read "body-based") sin and weaves them both into a seamless garment of love and truth.

[thanks to Richard Rohr]
02:01 AM on 03/06/2013
More words of great wisdom, Simon.
01:11 PM on 03/06/2013
Jesus does have some quite specific teaching on sexual morality, which is often ignored.

He tightened up the reasons permissible for divorce, and is much harder on the issue of lust.

All ignored.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Simon Stylites
Dreamer, reader, writer, fool.
02:14 PM on 03/06/2013
I think you misread.

On the three occasions in which Jesus mentions lust (Matthew 5:27-28; Matthew 15:17-20; Mark 7:18-23), He does so when making a comparison between outward causes/actions and inward thoughts. This is best summed up in this quotation:

“For it is from inside, from men’s hearts and minds, that evil thoughts arise—lust, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, arrogance and folly! All these evil things come from inside a man and make him unclean!” - Mark 7:18-23.

When Jesus meets someone who has committed, what could be called, a sin of lust, he is compassionate and absolutely non-judgemental: He was confronted with a woman “caught in the act of adultery”.

His reaction:

“Let the one among you who has never sinned throw the first stone at her.” ...And when they heard what he said, they were convicted by their own consciences and went out, one by one, beginning with the eldest until they had all gone.

Jesus was left alone, with the woman still standing where they had put her. So he stood up and said to her, “Where are they all—did no one condemn you?”

And she said, “No one, sir.” “Neither do I condemn you,” said Jesus to her. “Go home and do not sin again.” - John 8:5-11.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DJPotterWriter
09:58 PM on 03/05/2013
We really need to hear more about what actually happened. Is he guilty merely of hypocrisy or of breaking the law? In other words, did he simply flirt with these men, or did he assault or harass them?
02:13 AM on 03/06/2013
Right, the details (which we don't have yet) do matter. It's not illegal to proposition people. But at the very least he was exploiting his position of power over these young men, and putting them in an awkward position. That's professionally unethical. But it may well be worse than that. I don't know which law Chris Rennard is being investigated under, but from this distance O'Brien seems to be in the same boat.
05:39 PM on 03/05/2013
We do not need to change to fall in line with secular society. There will always be those who fall by the wayside.We have with stood much stronger attacks on our faith over the last 2000 years. fads like to days anything goes attitude will come and go and we will still be here. We are here at the behest of God not some nobody in the secular world. You may not believe in his teachings but you will not destroy them either.
07:08 PM on 03/05/2013
I beg to differ. The Catholic Church is beholden to the laws and values of secular society in the same way that any institution is. If its members break the law they must be punished. If the Church conceals wrongdoing by its members then it imust be challenged. If it practises illegal discrimination then it must be required to conform. Faith groups can't operate within civil society while claiming exemption from it.
08:18 PM on 03/05/2013
I am not talking about those who break the law of our church.They should not be protected they are and should be punished. I am referring to the secular laws being enacted to try and destroy our church an all it stands for. 50 years ago this country and its government upheld most of the laws of God. It has now moved to enforcing laws against the laws of God. That is where it is going wrong. Anyone who breaks the law of god should be punished regardless of their position in the church or the secular society. To suggest that civil law is above the law of God does not need to even be answered.
photo
BeninOakland
Don't tell me you love me. Let me guess.
11:03 PM on 03/05/2013
And that's why we atheists thank god we don't live in a theocracy.

You might be happier living in Iran, where the law of god is the law of the land. Unfortunately for you, it would not be the law of god that you would find congenial.

But nonetheless, it would not only be the law of god, but the law. And that noose around your neck might make you reconsider the idea of having someone's particular, peculiar religious beliefs the law.
01:18 PM on 03/06/2013
Celibacy is not a law of God. Neither is hypocrisy.

Your denomination is getting itself in a massive problem - a recurring, centuries old problem - in trying to impose celibacy on its clergy.

When are you going to wake up, smell the coffee and realise that God does not, and never did require anybody to be celibate.

Let your clergymen marry, and then they will not find themselves being hypocrites.
12:10 AM on 03/05/2013
The RCC simply can not move forward until it honestly examines the role forced celibacy plays in attracting unhealthy, guilt ridden self loathing homosexuals into signing up for the Preisthood for all the wrong reasons. Let them start there.
09:17 PM on 03/04/2013
Never come a Priest before, although a few tried to come across me. Knew a Missionary once - said it was an interesting position.
08:20 PM on 03/04/2013
Details aren't clear, but no, doesn't seem to have been consensual. I agree, it's an important point.
Here's one of the complainants: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/02/obrien-priest-catholic-church
08:13 PM on 03/04/2013
Was it amongst consenting adults, if so what is the problem
09:15 PM on 03/04/2013
Interesting point you make. However persons in a position of authority should not assume 'consent'. There may be many reasons why an employee might seem to agree to a situation that they would not normally approve of particularly where line management is involved. From the managers perspective he / she must avoid inappropriate contact or else it could be construed as an abuse of power.
08:04 PM on 03/04/2013
Don't know what happened to my earlier reply ...
Chillops, agreed. My view is major institutions (that includes Oxford!) should be required to discriminate positively till they reach gender parity. Interesting that he church itself is taking tentative baby-steps in this direction: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/03/leonardo-sandri-argentine_n_2802608.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Thismortalcoil: sympathy for someone who seems deeply damaged, psychically, by living a lie. But his homophobia, though no doubt a result of that damage, is inexcusable. And yes, the lion's share of the sympathy should go to his victims.

Sasha: couldn't agree more. Nice wy of putting it.

Now off to give a lecture on Ancient Greek atheists! Thanks, all, for reading.
07:49 PM on 03/04/2013
why did these priest wait till now to come out with there storys when they could have stoped him years ago have they something to hide
04:55 AM on 03/05/2013
there was no internet years ago so stories like that could be just swept under the carpet. now, it's much more difficult so a lot of people feel encouraged to come forward.
secondsoprano
It'll be alright in the end.
08:56 AM on 03/05/2013
It's not that they have something to hide - they have something to lose. The closet is a terrifying place.
07:27 PM on 03/04/2013
This is a good article. The Cardinal's problem may not even be about being gay: to deny a human being the possibility any intimacy at all is cruel and perverse. We are social animals with a need for intimacy. You might be able to amend the laws of nature, but you can't abolish them. Abstinence is surely the greatest of all perversions of human nature. But the Catholic Church is about control and hypocrisy.

To look at this through Jungian spectacles, the Catholic Hierarchy makes the bargain of the Rhinegold: to forego love in exchange for power. But in the end, as in the myth, this bargain is ultimately destructive and sterile.
06:42 PM on 03/04/2013
Chillops, interesting, yes. I think all major institutions (Oxford included!) should be required to practice positive discrimination until they reach gender parity. It's perhaps the greatest injustice of the age. One of the cardinals seems to agree, up to a point: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/03/leonardo-sandri-argentine_n_2802608.html

Thismortalcoil: I guess I feel sympathy for anyone trapped in that awful, repressive web. Abusers are usually victims too. But yes I agree with the thrust of what you say: his homophobia (while psychologically explicable) was morally indefensible, and the lion's share of the sympathy should be for the junior priests.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
05:52 PM on 03/04/2013
You are a good and compassionate man, Tim, if you can find it in your heart to feel sorry for O' Brien.

He has admitted to his own sexual misconduct, and yet only a few months ago he tried to stop completely blameless gay people from getting married. He went so far as to compared them to paedophiles.

He has lived a very affluent and comfortable life off the back of his hypocrisy. As you point out, his victims are getting far less support from the church than he is. And aside from his direct victims, attitudes like his are responsible for all the bullying and violence that members of the LGBT community are working so hard to overcome.

I'm finding it quite hard to feel sorry for him.