Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

,

Edinburgh cardinal bows out of conclave after unspecified, anonymous accusations

Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Image

ROME, February 26, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The abrupt resignation of the cardinal archbishop of Edinburgh, and his announcement that he will not be attending the conclave, has come as a surprise to most veteran Vatican observers. Cardinal Keith O’Brien said that he was resigning because of age, but it follows the sudden appearance this weekend of allegations of unspecified “inappropriate behaviour” dating back to the 1980s by unnamed complainants.

O’Brien’s spokesman said the cardinal has disputed but not outright denied the charges made by three priests and a former priest who denounced him directly to the Vatican authorities. One of the four accusers said that the cardinal had entered into an “inappropriate relationship” with him, which required years of counselling. The claims were made to the nuncio’s office the week before Pope Benedict’s resignation announcement, although the Guardian did not release the information until February 23rd.  

O’Brien is known as the UK’s strongest and most outspoken supporter of Pope Benedict’s reforms, and has described homosexual activity as “harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of those involved”. He vigorously opposed the British and Scottish government’s attempts to impose “gay marriage” in law and the closure of the Catholic adoption agencies after the law was changed that would have forced them to consider homosexual partners for adoption.

In a statement, O’Brien confirmed that he would not be attending the conclave. “I do not wish media attention in Rome to be focused on me – but rather on Pope Benedict XVI and on his Successor,” he said. The surprise announcement brings the number of cardinal electors who will attend the conclave to 115, and means that no representative from Britain will be voting for a new pope.

The quick acceptance of O’Brien’s resignation by Pope Benedict is perhaps not surprising given the climate of extreme sensitivity in the Vatican right now over sexual abuse allegations, no matter how insubstantial. What is causing comment is O’Brien’s non-attendance at the conclave. This development comes, it has been noted, immediately following a statement by the Vatican on Friday that attendance at the conclave is a requirement for all the cardinals, no matter what their state of public notoriety.

“It is a duty, a ministry given to cardinals. Under no circumstances can it be waived,” said Father Federico Lombardi at a press briefing. Canon law supports this, but adds a caveat saying that cardinals can be excused due to illness or another “grave” reason. Fr. Lombardi’s comment came in response to calls from victims’ groups and Italian media for the former archbishop of Los Angeles, Roger Mahony, to stay home. Cardinal Mahony has been disciplined by his successor Archbishop Jose Gomez, who suspended the former’s public duties after it was revealed that he had plotted to conceal sexual molestation by priests.

This weekend, Mahony was deposed by a Los Angeles court for over three hours on Saturday in connection to a molestation case dating to his time as head of the largest Catholic diocese in the US. He described himself as a “scapegoat” and has compared his disgrace to the sufferings of Christ on the cross. After his deposition Mahony was presented with a petition with nearly 10,000 signatures of Catholics asking him not to attend the conclave. Despite this, Mahony left for Rome on the weekend. On his ‘blog, he compared him self to Christ, saying, “Jesus was painted with the same brush as the two thieves crucified with him.”

Along with Mahony, calls have come to prevent attendance by the former Archbishop of Philadelphia Cardinal Rigali, and Belgian Cardinal Danneels formerly the head of the archdiocese of Brussels and Cardinal Sean Brady, all of whom are under a cloud for alleged involvement in sex abuse scandals.

It has also not gone unremarked in Rome that O’Brien has, since his elevation to the College of Cardinals, been the strongest voice – often the only voice – in the British episcopate defending the Church’s teachings on life and family issues, forcefully opposing “gay marriage,” abortion and embryo research. Meanwhile his brothers in the Catholic hierarchy of England and Wales have only recently joined the work of the laity fighting to defend traditional marriage.

A source associated with the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children told LSN Sunday night that it is widely believed in pro-life circles in Britain that the sudden appearance of 20 year-old allegations against O’Brien, who is not only Britain’s sole voting cardinal but the strongest voice in the British episcopate supporting Benedict’s reform, is “entirely too convenient”.

 John Smeaton, SPUC director thanked O’Brien “for the many times in which he spoke out forcefully in defence of unborn children and of the family founded on marriage between one man and one woman”.

 “I am particularly grateful for the personal support which he gave to SPUC and to me in my role as SPUC director,” Smeaton said.

 A longtime friend of O’Brien, British writer Peter Jennings, wrote today that the accusations are suspicious. “I believe these priests should have the courage to come out and say exactly who they are.” Jennings, writing in the Daily Record, questioned why the priests “made their claims through a senior figure in the diocese rather than directly to nuncio Antonio Mennini”.

 Jennings added, “I would challenge these four men also to be more specific in their allegations. The talk of inappropriate behaviour is all very vague. It is not even clear if the allegations are sexual.” Jennings said that he never heard a word breathed against O’Brien alleging sexual misconduct in the entire 40 years of acquaintance.

 Before his elevation to the College of Cardinals, O’Brien was known for his “liberal” approach to Catholic doctrine, having said he had no objections to active homosexuals teaching in Catholic schools, and rebuking a fellow Scottish bishop for condemning homosexual activity. After he received his red hat from Pope John Paul II, however, the cardinal appeared to undergo an abrupt change of heart, and has since received widespread condemnation from the left and the media for his strong stance against “gay marriage”. The UK’s leading homosexualist lobby group, the powerful Stonewall, “awarded” O’Brien the title of “Bigot of the year” in 2012.

 In an interview with a German language Catholic news service, Katholisches, Archbishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta, the Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, said that anyone known to have interfered with a conclave is subject to the canonical penalty of automatic excommunication.

 Arrieta, a canonist, said that “precise rules” are needed to “avoid the uncertainty and dangers that had occurred in the 2000 year history” of the papacy. The cardinals, Archbishop Arrieta said, are obliged in obedience to accept the invitation to the General Congregation and then the conclave. Anyone trying to keep a cardinal from attending, or to “intervene” in their participation in the election of a new pope or “attempting to influence” the outcome faces a penalty of automatic excommunication (latae sententiae).

 “This severe exclusion from the ecclesial community, therefore, also applies to anyone who tries to stop one of the 117 voting cardinals in participating in the conclave,” Arrieta said.

 Damian Thompson, religion ‘blogs editor for the Daily Telegraph, wrote today that the allegations have been orchestrated by homosexualist activists to ruin the reputation of one of their strongest opponents, but that the unexpected announcement of retirement by Pope Benedict came as a windfall. 

 “If the scandal had come to light next month, that would have been nicely timed to ruin the Cardinal’s reputation just when the media would be running retrospective pieces about him,” Thompson wrote. “What no one could have guessed is that Pope Benedict would resign, meaning that Cardinal O'Brien would be the only Briton with a vote in the next conclave.”

FREE pro-life news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference on March 6, 2014. Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, , ,

Bobby Jindal: I’ll fight for religious freedom against Hollywood and Wall Street

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 23, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Although other Republican governors have “quickly cowered” when large corporations place the homosexual agenda ahead of religious liberty, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal vowed today to defend freedom of conscience from anyone – whether the assault comes from Hollywood liberals, activist judges, homosexual pressure groups, or even a traditional Republican ally like Big Business.

In a New York Times op-ed that combined constitutional philosophy with political strategy, Jindal wrote those who believe in traditional values are under assault from a well-funded alliance of secular “progressive” elitists from L.A. to Wall Street.

“Hollywood and the media elite are hostile to our values and they tip the scales to our liberal opponents at every opportunity,” he wrote. “Liberals have decided that if they can’t win at the ballot box, they will win in the boardroom.”

The two-term governor had a simple message for anyone who would try to get him to change his position on marriage or religious protections: “Save your breath.”

Jindal said he had already received corporate pushback as he fought for his state's pending Marriage and Conscience Act (H.B. 707).

Contrary to media caricatures of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts – like the one Jindal signed in 2010 – RFRA bills do not create a blanket right for businesses to discriminate against homosexuals. However, a devout business owner would not have to violate his, or her, conscience by participating in a same-sex “marriage” ceremony, a ritual with clearly religious implications.

“As a nation we would not compel a priest, minister or rabbi to violate his conscience and perform a same-sex wedding ceremony,” Jindal wrote. “But a great many Americans who are not members of the clergy feel just as called to live their faith through their businesses.”

Jindal's proposed H.B. 707 would add an additional layer of legal protection by preventing the state from denying state funding, licenses, or taking any “adverse action” against business owners who refused to participate in or recognize same-sex “marriages.”

The bill does not forbid gay “marriage” statewide – another, popular law already does that. But David Badash wrote at The New Civil Rights Movement that under the bill's terms, for instance, “Your employer doesn't have to extend medical coverage to your spouse.”

That has not made corporate interests, which often favor left-leaning social policies, happy.

Jindal linked to a letter from James M. Driesse, the Senior State Executive of IBM, who clearly linked its economic participation in Louisiana with Jindal's revising the law.

“IBM has made significant investment” in the state, Driesse wrote, but allowing businesses to deny same-sex “marriages” for religious reasons “will create a hostile environment.”

“IBM will find it much harder to attract talent to Louisiana if this bill is passed and enacted into law,” the letter warned.

Jindal, who is a likely 2016 presidential hopeful, said he is “certain that other companies, under pressure from radical liberals, will” follow suit, “but they will not deter me.”

Instead, they should be joining what had once been a three-legged stool of social, economic, and national security conservatives fighting against the Left, he said.

“The left-wing ideologues who oppose religious freedom are the same ones who seek to tax and regulate businesses out of existence,” he wrote. “The same people who think that profit making is vulgar believe that religiosity is folly.”

He added that denying religious freedom would rend our fraying social fabric. “A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us,” he counseled. “That’s why religious freedom laws matter.”

His op-ed immediately generated angry remarks from the Left and sighs of recognition on the Right.

Travis Weber, Director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council told LifeSiteNews that Jindal is “correct that corporations have to do some soul-searching to see if they truly support religious freedom for all, or if they are prepared to tell some religious believers their claims aren’t worth as much as others.”

“Big Business needs to remember that the many Americans who support its services and buy its products will observe how it treats and talks about their deeply held beliefs. All they are asking is to be left alone by the government to freely live out these beliefs in their lives and businesses,” Weber told LifeSiteNews.

“Governor Jindal recognizes this,” he said. “Big Business should do the same.”

Voices on the Left pursued their well-worn line, accusing Jindal of aiding discrimination and giving sanction to bigotry. The feminist, and often vulgar, website Wonkette.com riffed, “This is an important, serious religion in the United States, the God Hates Fags religion, and it deserves to be protected!”

But Bill Donohue of the Catholic League said that Jindal walked the line between conscience and charity perfectly, acting as “both a defender of religious liberty and an opponent of unjust discrimination.”

The Catholic spokesman called the governor's “willingness to publicly chastise corporations, from Wal-Mart to Wall Street, that have jumped on board the gay-marriage bandwagon” as “perhaps the boldest and most refreshing part of Jindal's essay.”

Economic freedom alone is not enough to maintain liberty, he said. “A free society depends as much on the virtue of its citizens as it does any factor.”

Conservative writer Dan Calabrese seemed pleased that “if the radical gay lobby or terrified Chamber of Commerce weenies try to bully Jindal into changing” the law, “they're apparently not going to get very far.”

When corporations demanded RFRA bills be vetoed or gutted, other Reublican governors – Mike Pence of Indiana and Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas – “folded like cheap suits,” he wrote.

Yet there was no great difference in the underlying principles of those state bills and the pending bill Jindal has so strongly championed, he said. “Jindal just explains it better.”

Calabrese “challenges conservatives to stop being such cowards in the face of liberal/media pressure on issues like this” and “counter their lies.”

“What Jindal understands is that you treat the radical gay mob the same way you treat a bully on the schoolyard,” he said. “You stand up to them. You refuse to be intimidated.”

Donohue agreed. “He gets it,” he said. “Hopefully he will inspire others to get it as well.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Patricia Jannuzzi
Fr. Peter West

,

A priest’s response to the gay activist who tried to silence a Catholic teacher for opposing his agenda

Fr. Peter West
By Fr. Peter West

Editor’s note: On April 2, Father Peter West, a Catholic priest and pro-life leader, wrote an open letter at MyCentralJersey.com to Hollywood actress Susan Sarandon defending Catholic teacher Patricia Jannuzzi after she was suspended by her Catholic school for criticizing the homosexual agenda. The newspaper ran a response to Father West on the same day by Scott Lyons, Sarandon’s nephew and a former student at Jannuzzi’s school.

The following letter is Father West’s full response to Lyons, published with his permission. A shorter version ran at MyCentralJersey.com on April 17.

Dear Scott Lyons,

In your letter campaigning against Patricia Jannuzzi, you said you hoped to start a dialogue. Dialogue is good, but what you call “dialogue” is really more like pressure tactics which led to Patricia fearing the loss of her job. Her statements were bold and controversial and would have been interesting dialogue for a classroom discussion. However, your campaign stifled “dialogue” through intimidation.

You may think this statement, "We need healthy families with a mother and a father for the sake of the children and humanity,” was offensive and violated modern standards of political correctness, but it is absolutely consistent with what Pope Francis and the Catholic Church teach. Pope Francis said, “Children have a right to grow up in a family with a father and a mother capable of creating a suitable environment for the child's development and emotional maturity,” and “the family is…a remedy against social fragmentation.” Societies that accept the homosexual agenda are in danger of extinction.

Patricia’s comment that "homosexual behavior is a choice ... sometimes violently taught" affirms Catholic teaching: homosexual orientation is not chosen, but behavior is. Choose to be chaste or choose to fulfill sexual desires in disordered ways. Her statements are correct and although they offend you, they are not reason enough for firing from a Catholic school. Patricia may have used some hyperbole using the term “violently taught,” but she was essentially correct about this too.

Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen co-authored a book called After the Ball; How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's. The strategy advocated was a technique called "jamming" -- public smearing of Christians or others who oppose the homosexual agenda. You applied this very tactic to Patricia Jannuzzi with your Aunt Susan’s support. Principal Jean Kline, Msgr. Seamus Brennan, and Bishop Bootkoski cooperated in your efforts by buckling to the pressure. They should have had Patricia’s back; instead they threw her under the proverbial bus. Had there not been a campaign by faithful Catholics and other people of good will, Patricia Jannuzzi would have lost her job.

When you compare beheadings and gay relationships, brutal violence is obviously a far greater evil. But both violence and the attack on the foundation of the family, through the attack on marriage as a union between one man and one woman, are evils. Pope Francis explained this as well: "The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life. These realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces, which threaten to disfigure God’s plan for creation. Every threat to the family is a threat to society itself."

Scott, the big picture here is the message of love, repentance and salvation preached by Jesus Christ. Patricia Jannuzzi didn’t judge homosexuals, she judged lifestyle choices. Though we must treat persons who struggle with a homosexual orientation with compassion, we can never approve of disordered behaviors. Catholic leaders should not be afraid to boldly proclaim and defend the truth. When Patricia Jannuzzi did so, it was easy for your supporters to isolate and vilify her with hate speech calling her a "vile bigot who got what she deserved."

Though your tone is much more reasonable now, your campaign against Patricia Jannuzzi has successfully intimidated many Catholic teachers. Even though Patricia has been reinstated, Immaculata High School, Immaculate Conception Parish, and the Diocese of Metuchen still act as if she has done something terribly wrong. They owe her an apology for what they put her through.

They should question how Immaculata graduates end up becoming homosexual activists who fight against Church teaching and intimidate others into silence. Instead, they’re more worried about not offending anyone. Truth will cause division. (Mat. 10, 34-36) While it is true that Bishop Bootkoski did not say anything denying Church teaching, nor did he do anything to defend it. This situation is extremely disturbing: silence is complicity.

I believe those in charge of your formation failed you by failing to impart a proper understanding and love of the Catholic faith, especially her beautiful teaching about God’s plan for human sexuality, marriage, and the family. I wonder if you have even heard of Pope St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. I believe that God’s judgment on those who failed to impart the faith to you will be more severe than yours.

Scott, I believe Jesus loves you, but he loves you too much to leave you in your sins. Jesus praised John the Baptist as the greatest man of his times. (Mat. 11, 11) In the spirit of John the Baptist, who told Herod that it was not right for him to live with his brother’s wife (Mark 6,18), I say to you it is not right that you should live with another man as a husband.

Love, indeed, is the highest good, but following the moral law including on matters of sexual morality is part of requirements of love. Jesus said, "If you love me, obey my Commandments.” (John 14, 15) My hope is that you will eventually come to understand the emptiness of seeking satisfaction apart from God's will, repent of your sins, and begin to follow Christ's teachings, including those regarding chastity, and that you return to the practice of your Catholic faith.

Sincerely,

Fr. Peter West

Advertisement
Featured Image
March-related events will begin at noon, with a rally from 12:00-1:00, and then the march itself at 1:00. Participants will gather at the mall in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C.
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

Thousands to join March for Marriage in D.C. Sat. under shadow of Supreme Court hearing

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

April 23, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - On Saturday, thousands of pro-family Americans are expected to flock to Washington, D.C. for the third annual March for Marriage.

Organized by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), March-related events will begin at noon, with a rally from 12:00-1:00, and then the march itself at 1:00. Participants will gather at the mall in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C.  

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments as to whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex "marriage," or if states should be allowed to make their own marriage policy.

The will take place in the shadow of what may be the most consequential marriage hearing in American history. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments as to whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex "marriage," or if states should be allowed to make their own marriage policy.

A related rally, sponsored by the Alliance Defending Freedom, will take place before the March. The NOM rally will begin at noon Eastern Time, with the March starting at 1:00 Eastern. The rally and March will be live-streamed by LifeSiteNews, the March for Marriage’s official media partner.

"We expect thousands of people to attend,” Frank Shubert, National Political Director of NOM, told LifeSiteNews. “This is the third March for Marriage and will attract the largest group of marriage supporters yet. We have people coming from all over the country."

"Imagine if we could go back in time and rally the pro-life community in Washington before the infamous Roe v Wade case was heard by the justices of the Supreme Court. We have that opportunity now to preserve marriage.

“The March for Marriage is our last, best opportunity to show the justices of the Court, the media and opinion leaders in Washington that the American people continue to support marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and demand that their votes and values be respected and upheld."

The March has drawn dozens of sponsors and coalition partners, as well as national voices on marriage.

When: Saturady April 25, from noon-1:00
Where: The mall in front of the U.S. Capitol

 

Speakers include:

Brian Brown
Senator Ruben Diaz
Reverend Brandon B. Porter Prelate
Josh Duggar
Rev. Bill Owens
Rev. Jim Garlow
Tom Minnery
Mat Staver
Archbishop Kurtz
Jennifer Marshall
Carlos Luis Vargas Silva
Bishop Anne Gimenez (closing Prayer)
Cathy Ruse

Sponsors include:

ActRight
Alliance Defending Freedom
American Principles Project
Catholic Vote
Christian Union
Citizen Link
Crown Them With Glory
Manhattan Declaration
Tradition, Family, Property
USCCB

Coalition Partners:

2nd Vote
Archdiocese of Philadelphia
Centro Biblico Internacional
Coalition of African-American Pastors
FRC
Focus on the Family
FRC Action
Heritage Foundation
Human Life International
Liberty Counsel
MRC
North Carolina Family Policy Council
NC Values Coalition
The Family Foundation (VA)
Wisconsin Family Action

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook