Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
News Ltd outrage patronises ordinary Australian Catholics
|
Australian believers of all faiths, and of no faith in particular, read newspapers. However, when newspaper editorialists (and some columnists) try to read believers and their sentiments, they often miss the mark. Certain columnists and editorialists at The Australian and other metropolitan News Ltd papers have heavily criticised the ABC and Fairfax reporting of sexual abuse allegations against Catholic priests. You can read some of these criticisms at the ABC Media Watch website here. That criticism was repeated again in today’s editorial in The Oz. The gist has been that widespread reporting of the issue is an affront to World Youth Day pilgrims and ordinary Catholics. The goal seems to be defending the sentiments of ordinary Catholics. The effect is that the editorialists and columnists are patronising Catholic believers. It’s as if Catholics must necessarily be offended by reporting of the misdeeds of Catholic clergy. On Saturday night, I attended a gathering of Jesuits in Melbourne. These devout Catholics had no hesitation in using the strongest language against the comments of Cardinal Pell and Bishop Fisher about sexual abuse victims. It reminded me of the colourful language many Muslims (including myself) used when Sheik Hilaly was caught out using Ramadan sermons to develop new advertising copy for the cat-food industry. These Catholics had no hesitation in criticising their religious leaders in the presence of a non-Catholic. They said it was an issue of human rights that affected everyone regardless of faith. Indeed, the Pope himself showed far more leadership and openness on this issue than some News Ltd editorialists. The concern shown by some News Limited editorialists and columnists for Catholic sentiments wasn’t present when these editorialists commented on another religious leader caught out making disparaging remarks about rape victims. In one edition, The Oz devoted an entire 7 pages of broadsheet copy to Hilaly’s cat-meat comments. Further, editorialists and columnists had no hesitation in casting aspersions on Australian Muslims and indeed Muslims across the world. Indeed, when yours truly argued in Crikey that The Oz’s Hilaly overkill was only making Hilaly’s position stronger, The Oz ran a highly offensive editorial accusing me of “covering up Islamic outrages”, and even suggested I was letting “intolerant attitudes fester in the shadows before exploding and catching Australia unawares, as has happened in countries such as England, Denmark, Spain and The Netherlands”. As if I spent most of my time defending Hilaly. So on the one hand, editorialists at The Oz and its sister papers think it’s ok to use the insensitive words of a Muslim “cleric” to pillory some 360,000 Australians who tick the “Muslim” box on their census forms. On the other hand, these same writers and editors think Catholics are so over-sensitive that they won’t be able to cope with reporting of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. Both are extreme positions, patronising and offensive to believers. The presence of both extremes in the same newspapers takes media hypocrisy to new levels. |
|
|
15 Comments
JamesK, I for one am relieved that the Jesuits have had the balls to tell it like it is. Fr Frank Brennan (also a Jesuit) has been expressing similar views for weeks. They, rather than company men like Pell and Fisher hiding behind legalism and denigration of victims, are the only reason one can have faith that the Catholic church is not actually evil.
And may your god go with you…..
Good one, Irfan. The Saturday editorial the week before last must have been written by Frank Devine, as they were so sectarian in tone and content as to offend every other non-Catholic on the land. They said the media shoould respect the pope because he is the Vicar of Christ. Well, he states he is, but no non-Catholic believes it to be so. In fact, this was one of the causes of the Reformation … and when we talk to Muslims don’t we always say at least we have had the Reformation?
Er Fr Frank Brennan does not agree with his own church wrt abortion and that was the point.
So Dave Liberts believes that there is no God but as he is a self declared humanist of which I approve, I will leave him with one of the most renown anti-clerical wags in history, Voltaire who reputedly said:
“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.”
In case anyone is interested, Eureka Street ran a column that was originally meant to run in The Age but was taken off the page by the Editor-in-Chief at the last minute for a host of reasons.
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=8224
NewMatilda also ran a piece of similar import …
http://www.newmatilda.com/2008/07/24/dont-get-over-it
Anyway I gotta go and finish reading “The Essential Dave Allen” which Sydney-siders can pick up from Basement Books for around $6!!!
Mary Ann’s assessment inherent in her comment is not shared by me.
1. The idea of an “exposure” by Lateline as if it were “breaking’ a new story.
2. Pell’s treatment may or may not have been ‘unfair’. That is not yet determined. Pell’s letter was certainly no worse than the sentence meted out by the the judge who heard the case to the appalingly wayward priest .
3. Again we are not yet at all sure that Pell has anything to apologise for.
4. The “campaign against Cardinal Pell” does not refer to Pell’s refusal acknowledge any wrong doing whatever that wrongdoing was. It refers to Lateline’s and The Age’s unfairly finding him guilty of wrongdoing whatever that was and sensationalising an old case on the eve of the arrival of the Pontiff.
Great article which I certainly trust will be read by all those WYD supporters who criticised those of us who criticised Pell and Fisher on these pages over the last few weeks.
i think a lot of catholics are like me did not bother reading the News limited stuff. as to the cardinal silly and bishop Fisher pompous and silly
Quite right JamesK, I did indeed mis-read your comment about Fr Frank Brennan and apologise for accusing you of trying to wedge me. I’m all the more confused by why you cite this as evidence of me holding “one of the “extreme positions, patronising and offensive to believers” just described by Irfan Yusuf” though. I also thank you for that superb quote from Voltaire - I’ll carry that one with me.
And JamesK, while we’re dragging up old Crikey articles to defend our points, here’s an example of an article where I’ve criticised a pro-Vatican-marketing exercise Catholic while supporting the position of a frustrated why-does-the-church-engage-in-this-rubbish Catholic:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080703-Catholics-distance-themselves-from-anti-annoyance-WYD-laws.html
Ah JamesK, your feeble attempt to wedge me ignores that many comments I have written on these pages have endeavoured to reflect my own sincere tolerance of people’s faith (although you appear to have missed the fact that that ‘faith’ and ‘religion’ are far from the same thing). I may not precisely agree with Fr Frank Brennan on abortion, but he is certainly entitled to back the Catholic church’s stand on the question of abortion and its morality and although I’m pro-choice this is not the same as being ‘pro-abortion’. Tolerance of people’s sincere faith-based morality is what I support. What I accordingly DON’T support is hypocrisy on the part of churches. The Catholic Church’s decades of coverups, denials, legalistic defensiveness and ongoing shiftiness about its role in priest abuse is outstandingly hypocritical for an organisation which is supposedly all about protecting the vulnerable and helping those who need it in line with the teachings of Jesus. This is the Jesuits’ point too. I strongly agree with them on this. Contrary to your comment, I have endeavoured not to be ‘anti-Catholic’ in my commentary (although I would happily describe myself as ‘anti-Vatican’ on the strength of what I’ve seen lately). My position is not extreme at all, I’m just angry at the thought of the Catholic hierarchy parading their church as being without fault (or with minimal fault) so as to maximise their marketing and minimise their legal liability for some horrific wrongs. This is all I’ve been saying all along. I support Catholics who put Jesus ahead of the Vatican - Brennan and Fr Bob Maguire are two prominent Catholic priests who I respect for doing just that. For what it’s worth, I am an athiest who believes that as a philosopher, Jesus presents an excellent model for societal organisation.
ABC’s Lateline exposure of Pell’s unjust treatment of a young man who had been subjected to sexual assault by a priest, and of Pell’s refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing was described as “a campaign against Cardinal Pell”.
Good comment. Pity that reasonable rank and file members of various faiths always seem to have self-satisfied twits like Pell and Hilay whose pontifications are taken to represent the opinions of all members of their faith.
Thank God, whoever she may be, that I am agnostic. My intolerance of intolerance is philosophical, not religious.
As usual with Dave Liberts out comes talk with the dressing or facade of authenticity and reason but there are no references and no reasoned argument.
Unlike you Dave I am not ‘au fait’ with what the “Jesuits have had the balls to tell it like it is” arguments. I have also never heard of Fr Frank Brennan. That being so, it could reasonably be assumed that many others have not also. But please do let that stop you pontificating.
I have just googled ‘Fr Frank Brennan”.
Is he this Fr Frank Brennan who holds that, in Catholic teaching, abortion is not the moral equivalent of murder and that in a pluralist democracy, it is wrong to have a law prohibiting all abortions?
For those interested in Dave Liberts anti-catholic stance read the comments from last weeks Crikey editorial and my responses. Dave I suspect you fit in to one of the “extreme positions, patronising and offensive to believers” just described by Irfan Yusuf .
Apologies! Reference to the Crikey editorial last week:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Crikey-Says/20080717-Crikey-Says.html