In reading the latest editorial in The Southern Cross, titled "Drinking and Driving", I couldn't help but consider the difference in approach that this editorial took, in comparison to the editorial about Bishop Cawcutt on 24 July 2004, titled “A dangerous precedent”.
In the editorial on Bishop Cawcutt, the editor seemed extremely annoyed that the Cape Town Bishop's resignation was accepted by Rome. I do not know the full details of the events that led to the bishop's resignation, only that it apparently involved the Internet and pornographic / vulgar content. It’s not important.
What is important is that the editor of The Southern Cross at that time criticised what he called a "conglomerates of Catholics who consider it suitable to pursue a bishop’s resignation with undue vigour."
Now I ask you, what is the editor doing with this Archbishop Cordileone matter? Was it even necessary to base an entire editorial on his drink driving offence? I mean really, I can think of a dozen events that would deserve a full editorial at this time. The Marikana massacre could be one: allegations that miners may have been executed by police; exceptionally poor living and working conditions of the miners; miners charged with an apartheid law...
Sigh… oh well.