POPE Francis met several times in private with the late Cardinal Keith O’Brien, and expressed sympathy over the anonymous accusations which ended his career, a close friend and colleague has claimed.
Canon Matt McManus, who knew the Cardinal for 60 years, said the Pope had been concerned that the four priests responsible for the allegations of sexual misconduct had never made their claims public.
“He took a very gentle and caring line,” Canon McManus said. “The correspondence between the Cardinal and Pope Francis, which the Cardinal shared with me, accounts of the Holy Father’s views on ‘guilt without trial’ and how damaging and hurtful this can be.”
He appealed to the anonymous accusers of Cardinal O’Brien, who died earlier this month and who will be buried next week, to come forward so their claims can be tested.
Read more: Canon claims church "misled" public over Cardinal's funeral wishes
“Cardinal O’Brien was never told who made the allegations or what they were. Apart from Pope Francis and those of us who knew him well, very few were ready to question the anonymity of the accusations,” he said.
The Pontiff had invited his Cardinal for several private visits after allegations emerged, during the papacy of his predecessor. Cardinal O’Brien had recused himself from the conclave to select the new Pope, so the scandal surrounding him did not distract from his appointment, Canon McManus said. “That Cardinal O’Brien sought permission to be absent from the conclave so as not to take the attention of the press from the election of a new Pope was immediately construed by some as a sign of guilt.
“Taking account of his almost total deafness and the clamour going on around him, he admitted that his sexual conduct had not always been worthy of this position and role. But that was no admission of the accusations - how could it be? He did not know who the accusers were or what the accusations were,” he added.
Similarly, Cardinal O’Brien had agreed to Pope Francis’ suggestion that he move to the north of England to spare him further anxiety and publicity. But this had been portrayed as an order exiling him from Scotland, and further evidence of guilt, Canon McManus said. He claimed Cardinal O’Brien had attempted to seek reconciliation with his accusers, at the suggestion of the Pope, but without any response.
And he appealed to the accusers to “come into the light”, adding: “It has been said the three priests and the former priest who made the accusations... were afraid to report him as ‘it would affect their careers’. Strange attitude for a priest.” One claim is that Cardinal O’Brien “misused his power” Canon McManus added. “Cardinal O’Brien never saw ‘power’ as an attribute of priesthood, or of his role as Archbishop.”
He said the meetings with the Pope had given his friend some comfort. “It certainly gave the cardinal much peace of mind. He came back a more happy contented man. The Holy Father’s concern for the Cardinal’s well being shows us how a true Christian deals with another. Would that more were able to follow the Pope’s example.”
Read more: Obituary - Keith O’Brien, Scottish cardinal whose tenure ended in disgrace
Following the allegations against Cardinal O’Brien, Pope Francis appointed Maltese Archbishop Charles Scicluna to look into the case, but the findings were never published. A source within the Catholic Church in Scotland said the report the Archbishop produced had never been seen in Scotland. “We are in the same position as the Cardinal. But no illegal or criminal behaviour was alleged against anybody. The report would have been used to inform any subsequent action by the Vatican. But the accusers chose to maintain their anonymity and didn’t want details of the allegations to be made public.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel