Why would a Catholic newspaper, whose
editorial was used, not as a means to defend, but instead as the basis for critical
media reports about Catholic Church teaching, choose to boast about this fact?
I would think this would be news that one would happily see fade away with time
and buried, never to be remembered, especially not as one of the significant
events in the newspapers history.
The Southern Cross ran an editorial in July
2001 titled “The Condom Debate”. In it the editor says: “When
the Church’s message on sexuality is not heard, alternative ways of protecting
life must be considered.”
The History Page
of The Southern Cross boasts that “In July, a
Southern Cross editorial receives worldwide media coverage, including Time
magazine, the BBC Worldservice, and the Voice of America.”[Sic]
Well, let’s take a look at the type of media
coverage it featured in and then you decide if this is an editorial the
newspaper actually wants to boast about on its History Page:
BBC News – “Plea to church on condoms”
– “The editor of the Southern Cross
Journal, Gunther Simmermacher wrote that condoms have an important role to play
in preventing the transmission of HIV.”
Time Magazine – “Condoms For Life” – “South African Catholics
have called for a relaxation of the church's ban on the use of condoms to help
the fight against aids.”
It is important to remember that Pope Paul
VI anticipated these reactions when he so bravely wrote his encyclical letter,
Humanae Vitae, in 1968. In it the Pope said:
“It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept
this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the
voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication.
But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her
divine Founder, is destined to be a "sign of contradiction." She does not, because of this, evade
the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law,
both natural and evangelical.
Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be
their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right
for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very
nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.
In preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is
convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human
civilization. She urges man not to betray his personal responsibilities by
putting all his faith in technical expedients. In this way she defends the
dignity of husband and wife. This course of action shows that the Church,
loyal to the example and teaching of the divine Savior, is sincere and
unselfish in her regard for men whom she strives to help even now during this
earthly pilgrimage "to share God's life as sons of the living God, the
Father of all men."”[1]
Personally, I believe this editorial was
nothing more than an embarrassing own goal. A Catholic newspaper should be
focussed on promoting the teaching of the Church and why it makes sense, not
joining its voice with that of the secular media.
But, Editor, if you are
concerned that Catholics won’t be aware of opposing views, don't worry, the secular media is
taking real good care of making sure Catholics never ever forget the opposing
views. They don’t need your help, though it must be said, you seem to be doing
a darn good job of helping them.
Here is an excerpt from a statement that the
South African Catholic Bishop Conference issued a few weeks after The Southern
Cross editorial. The statement just proves, thankfully, that our bishops in
South Africa are not easily swayed or blinded by silly editorials, even when it gets world wide media coverage.
“Widespread and indiscriminate promotion of condoms [is] an immoral and
misguided weapon in our battle against HIV-AIDS. …Condoms may even be one of
the main reasons for the spread of HIV-AIDS.”
No comments:
Post a Comment