Sometimes people ask for examples of what Catholic bloggers and others have identified as BBC bias against the Catholic Church. You could not wish for a clearer example that the intro to the 0810 interview of Cardinal Murphy O'Connor by John Humphreys yesterday on the Radio 4 Today programme. You can hear it for a few days on the BBC iPlayer. (The segment starts at about 2 hours 10 minutes.) I take the point that Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's performance was not all that we might have hoped for, but Leutgeb at Bara Brith has highlighted in her letter of complaint the relentless negativity that Catholics have to endure from the BBC.It is also true that some gay people have abused children. (Example.) But elementary logic teaches us that the proposition "some gays are paedophiles" does not imply the proposition "all gays are paedophiles." The BBC would never make that mistake. Would it be too much to ask of the BBC that the same elementary logic be applied to the Catholic priesthood?
21 comments:
A welcome post, thank you.
Sadly, this type of hatred, for that is what it is, covers an entire web of hypocrisy, as those interviewing honestly do not care about anything but destroying the Church.
I would love a head count of how may gays the BBC employs. The attack on the Church and, in this case, an older man who, no offence, should not be the main spokesperson for the Catholic Church in England (we need a PR priest who is savvy and conservative-that is real Catholic and not Catholic-Lite) is what we can expect from now on.
Can the Church really expect anything else? Having shown itself to have failed so badly in practising the morality it preaches to others of course the media are going to have a go at it. It's not a matter of hating anyone or anything, it is what media do. Let's not forget that left to itself the Church did little about the abuse scandal. It was only when it began to be reported that the Church started to act.
In today's world the Catholic Church is always going to be pilloried when it makes these sorts of messes. The answer is obvious: don't blame others, show that you are serious in addressing the underlying causes in the system itself that enable abuse to take place.
A worse example was the Radio 4 PM programme last week, after the retirement of Pope Benedict, when PM interviewed the American priest who had been the Vatican Latinist for the recent Popes. By the end of the interview, in which this extremist had vented his spleen for five minutes on every aspect of Vatican life that he found too rooted in tradition, I simply wanted to strangle the interviewer and the interviewee. It is time that the BBC explained its bigotry.
All true of course but the Cardinal was hopeless. Perhaps Catholic Voices could give him some media training.
Humphrys' approach to interviewing shows the same kind of mind-set as that of the interrogator who resorts to torture. In short be as beastly as you possibly can to the interviewee and they will eventually "spill the beans". Part of his technique involves lumping several questions and wild assertions together and firing them off very quickly so as to confuse the subject. At one stage in this interview he went so far as to assert that "hundreds of thousands" of children had been abused by clergy- an assertion that was, understandably, but regrettably, left unchallenged.
I suggest that it is one thing to respond to challenging questions and quite another to lay oneself open to the insulting rantings of an ill-mannered and malicious yob.
The BBC needs to develop an
anti-bullying policy for its interviewers and subject those who appear year after year to regular tests to monitor discrimination between lazy or malicious bias and inciting religious hatred. There is also the necessary business of avoiding abusing the vulerable, such as frail, elderly cardinals. A new low for the Today programme.
The BBC operates through a gay liberal mafia. I rang them immediately John Humphry's words entered my car on Monday morning. Firstly, I couldn't understand why he was linking COB with child abuse and secondly, I knew the figures did not bear scrutiny. Sack the overnight team who wrote his scripts - plain wrong journalism.
As for Cormac's interview. That just about finished me off for the day.....
Supertradmum - How about Monsignor Anthony Figueiredo? (HT protectthepope)
I was subjected to this interview on my drive to work. Almost ruined my day.
BBC bias is getting worse. I think this item would probably be what they would consider sympathetic: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21671658
The Church has handled the matter of paedophilia and homosexuality badly. The reaction has been, invariably, unthinking grovelling apology, rather than considered response, in perspective.
The worst offenders by far are secular institutes. The history of the Channel Islands, Welsh and other UK institutes is yet to come out. Protestant churches have a worse record then the Catholic Church, (see Catholic League paper, 17th April 2012), yet the spotlight is invariably directed at the Catholic Church.
In the USA (Jay Report) they had 1203 priests actually charged, over 52 years resulting in 252 convictions, and in Ireland, 68 convictions over 59 years - hardly the tens of thousands Humphreys referred to.The figures for the Church in the UK were and are much lower.
The problem by far is outside the Catholic Church, as shown in the NSPCC report, January 2009, which reported 53 case of sexual abuse against children in UK society - every day of the year.
By the way, and contrary to what others think, I thought Murphy O’Connor handled the interview quite well, in that he stood up to Humphreys, and I think Humphries appreciated that, judging by his tone of voice right at the end.
We have nothing to lose in making a considered complaint to the Radio 4 Feedback programme. They might even take it seriously...
http://www.bbc.co.uk//radio4/features/feedback/contact/
Honestly, what do you expect from the BBC?
The BBC is a liberal left wing anti-orthodox christian organisation which pursues its own agenda from the invincible position it has due to the unique way it is funded......by extorting money from the population by threat of gaol.
It is unreformable.
I have sent in my formal complaint. I hope many others do. Simply google "BBC Complaints" and the rest is simple.
Have listened to the interview on iplayer and much as I love Cardinal Cormac I was cringong at the interview. I got the gist of what his eminance was saying but very painful to listen to. Cannot the Catholic Church finally bit Its house in order?
You behave as your Church - no criticism, please. Come on.
Criticism from krites, one who arbitrates, makes a rational judgement. We're fine with that. It is those who make statements without any judgement, or before any judgement that we object to - or as we might say, pre-judice.
"It is also true that some gay people have abused children. (Example.) But elementary logic teaches us that the proposition "some gays are paedophiles" does not imply the proposition "all gays are paedophiles."
Actually Fr the position of the Church is just this, that all gays are reasonably capable of paedophilia/ sexual abuse by reason of their sexual orientation alone.
The following is a quote from a 1992 Vatican document which I am not aware has been rescinded in any part:
10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html#top
Actually Aaron, rhe Church need not rescind its position because it is correct. Your reading of rhe Church's position is however incorrect. You seem to be making an irrational leap of logic from the above two paragraphs. Here are the facts:
Paragraph 10
This is about whether the Church's position on homosexuality can be considered in the same light as discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. It indicates that the Church construes homosexuality as an objective disorder, while the colour of a person's skin is not disordered but natural. Therefore it is like comparing apples to pears. Taking a stance on homosexuality is not to be interpreted as discrimination but a moral concern for retaining the natural order. (You can refute this as much as you like, but human species cannot continue without male-female pairing, unless you start down the road of test tube babies, surrogacy etc. Ever read Aldous Huxley?
Paragraph 11
Consistent with paragraph 10, states that it subverts the natural order for children to be raised by same-sex couples, or to be in situations where those in authority might influence children or have an unhealthy proximity with those under their influence. This is not about pedophilia per se. No idea why you leapt to that conclusion. It is simply a moral statement about proper role models or vulnerable conditions.
P.S. Fr, I totally agree with your post, and I will write in to the BBC about this. They can't just use our licence money in this cavalier way.
Post a Comment