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.
No comments:
Post a Comment