Over the last few weeks, with the high-profile news reports gaining momentum, I'm sure many Catholics like me have had a real sense of the church under a new wave of attack on this issue. You have probably encountered gossip and ridicule but have had to do your best to defend the Catholic Church as best you can. I've found it's so difficult to respond to news reports that point the finger at Pope Benedict, because it is pure speculation. Basically, whatever you say in response to a discussion in the workplace or in the pub about the latest stories, you find there is new criticism about a different aspect. Just one comment trying to compassionately respond to apparent claims and defend the pope can open you up to attack in another sense. And the arguments are not just with non-Catholics, they are with lapsed Catholic friends too. It's a no win situation.
However, I suppose we must be doing something right if we are getting ridiculed for trying to defend the faith, as Christ does warn us in the scriptures that the Church will be abused and persecuted. Because we might not know the ins and outs of what has gone on in various places, it can be difficult to respond, especially when the matter at hand is about priests horribly abusing their position of authority. But we must ask the Holy Spirit to help us to give a compassionate but firm response when challenged and prevent us from getting hysterical.
I'd like to make a few observations about the journalistic side of things. It really does seem as though (and now I'm opening myself up to more criticism, but it has to be said) that the media is using this issue as a way of attacking the pope and the church. Yes, it's true that it's horrible that child abuse goes on, and in some cases is covered up, in a church that preaches the fundamental importance of the dignity of the human person etc. But it does seem that the British media is certainly "out to get" Pope Benedict ahead of his visit here in September.
There has also been some awful, speculative journalism in all of this. Take, for instance, several news items about the Papal Mass on Palm Sunday. The BBC reports Pope Mass hints at fightback against abuse critics while the Guardian goes for Pope dismisses 'petty gossip' of sexual abuse allegations. The intro starts:
Pope Benedict, facing the worst crisis of his papacy as a sexual abuse scandal sweeps the Catholic church, declared today he would not be "intimidated" by "petty gossip"...No he didn't. If you actually read the homily, he was preaching the faithful to seek the truth from Jesus Christ.
He leads us to what is great, pure, he leads us to the healthy air of the heights: to life according to truth; to the courage that does not let itself be intimidated by the gossip of dominant opinions; to the patience that stands up for and supports the other. He leads us to availability to the suffering, to the abandoned; to the loyalty that stands with the other even when the situation makes it difficult.Who says he was referring to the abuse scandals here? The BBC actually implies that the pope was talking about his own personal faith, saying:
At a Mass in Rome's St Peter's Square, he said his faith would help give him the courage to deflect "petty gossip".Then it admits he didn't refer to the sex abuse scandal directly. Here we have a case of the BBC rewording a quote to suit their headlines. Not the first time this has happened.
Then we have the reports that are borderline libelous. In a web address I noticed on the Guardian, we have http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/26/pope-accused-priest-sex-abuse-germany, implying to anyone just reading that strapline that the pope is an abuser himself.
I'm now going off to pray for the Pope...
3 comments:
While I broadly agree with you (and think that the Times has been particularly gregious and unfair in its coverage, from among the London-based press), I do think that the "he" in that final sentence is clearly intended to refer to "the head of an influential order of priests", and not Pope Benedict; and in fact that those two sentences are more or less supportive of the HF's actions (as seems to be suggested by the paragraphs immediately preceding and following them).
"egregious", rather.
Sorry Dominic, you're right. Thanks for pointing that out. It was rather late when I was writing this! I've deleted it now.
Post a Comment