Today the Holy See announced that Cardinal Keith O'Brien of Scotland has resigned the "rights and privileges" of being a cardinal. The news follows the conclusion of a Vatican investigation of allegations that O'Brien sexually harrassed adult men, including a seminarian, and carried on a long-term sexual relationship with a priest. O'Brien, once an outspoken critic of homosexuality, resigned as archbishop of Edinburgh in 2013, admitting that "many times" his sexual conduct had "fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop, and cardinal.” And he recused himself from the conclave that elected Pope Francis. Until now, O'Brien had been living in a seaside home apparantly enjoying the rights and privileges of a cardinal. Not anymore. He won't be able to participate in any more conclaves, or act as an adviser to the pope. Still, O'Brien gets to keep his title, even if he's permitted to wear his red hat and vestments only in private.

This is "an extraordinarily decisive act of governance that combines justice with mercy," according to Gerard O'Collins. Andrea Tornielli called the pope's decision "courageous." It may be merciful and it's certainly extraordinary (the last time a cardinal resigned was in 1927). But is it decisive? Courageous? I have my doubts.

First, the allegations against O'Brien surfaced nearly two years ago. Pope Francis did not appoint Archbishop Charles Scicluna--once the Vatican's top abuse investigator--to look into the situation until 2014, well after the pope had ordered O'Brien to get out of Scotland for a few months. Of course, thorough investigations take time, and Scicluna is a busy man, but it's not as though O'Brien's accusers were unknown, or difficult to reach. They sent their initial complaints to the papal nuncio in late 2012 and early 2013. Why has it taken nearly two years to get to the bottom of this?

Second, look at the communique released by the Holy See:

The Holy Father has accepted the resignation of the rights and privileges of a Cardinal, expressed in canons 349, 353 and 356 of the Code of Canon Law, presented by His Eminence Cardinal Keith Michael Patrick O’Brien, Archbishop Emeritus of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh, after a long period of prayer. With this provision, His Holiness would like to manifest his pastoral solicitude to all the faithful of the Church in Scotland and to encourage them to continue with hope the path of renewal and reconciliation.

Reconciliation for what? The statement doesn't say. It provides no context It cites canons that define the role of cardinals and require that they "cooperate assiduously" with the pope. Is the Vatican suggesting the O'Brien had to resign his rights and privileges because he wasn't doing his job well enough? Obviously he hadn't been meeting exepectations for quite some time. But those canons don't cover resignaton or removal. (Canons 187 and 196 cover the resignation from or deprivation of ecclesiastical office.)* Last month the pope told the Roman Curia that he expected "greater harmony in work of the various departments and offices, in order to realize a more efficient collaboration based on absolute transparency." This communique falls somewhat short of that standard.

Third, the pope could have rescinded O'Brien's title, but he let him keep it. That may have been a merciful measure; after all, while O'Brien was accused of abusing his office and violating celibacy, he was not accused of misconduct with minors. But isn't it strange for a pope who has made clericalism one of his siganture themes to allow a man who committed egregious sexual misconduct to remain a cardinal in name only? Just last year Francis abolished the honorific "monsignor" for clerics under sixty-five. What is the point of having O'Brien relinquish his rights and privileges as a cardinal if he gets to keep the title?

That decision was better than nothing, I suppose. Still, a Holy See spokesman wanted to make sure the media understood that O'Brien's resignation was "not a punishment resulting from a process”--one that has been going on for two years--but a decision the cardinal reached himself, in dialogue with the pope. That doesn't strike me as particularly decisive or courageous. Being clearer sooner about why this happened would be decisive. Stripping O'Brien of a now meaningless title would have been courageous. But letting him keep it? To this layman that seems a bit, well, clericalist.

_{* This sentence has been edited. The original version suggested that no canons cover the resignation of a cardinal. In fact that possibility is addressed in canons 184-196, on the loss of ecclesiastical office more generally.}