Savita Halappanavar |
I wrote in mid
November 2012 about the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar. I made
the point that the pro-abortion groups were being completely unreasonable in
jumping to a conclusion that an abortion would have saved this woman’s
life. I stated that there was simply no evidence to
support this conclusion and it would therefore be wise for all parties to wait
for the outcome of the investigations into the matter.
Sadly no one was
prepared to wait. Even our own South
African Catholic newspaper weighed in on the matter, saying that “The Catholic Church should now review
whether its pro-life teachings, especially on abortion, are truly understood in
all their nuances, or whether the manner in which they are communicated might
create unwelcome misinterpretations, as they clearly did in Ireland.”
What I find amusing
is that The Southern Cross, since it published the editorial, which was
entitled “Misunderstood Teaching”, and pompously suggested that the Church should review whether its
pro-life teaching is truly understood, has not published
anything that would help give its readers a better and clearer understanding of
the Church’s pro-life teaching. I would
have thought that it would be the next logical step for our illustrious
Catholic newspaper and its wiseacre editor.
At the time the
editorial was published by The Southern Cross I actually made this comment on
their website: “Catholic media, such as this newspaper, needs to review whether they have adequately communicated the various Church teaching to their readers. Have they made sufficient efforts to use their access to readers to promote and teach the Church’s teaching, plus help readers understand the truth of the Church teaching in various scenario’s, such as the Savita Halappanavar case.”
This editor and
his staff would do well to take time to intently study the contents of Inter Mirifica - Decree On The Media Of Social Communications, if they have not
done so yet. Its not acceptable for a
Catholic newspaper to devote its resources to highlighting, along with all the
secular media, what is wrong with the Church and her teaching. The Southern Cross should instead be intent
on communicating the Church’s teaching in a manner that helps its readers to
properly understand the truth taught by the Church.
It is
interesting to note that the reporter, Kitty Holland, who broke the story of
the death of Savita Halappanavar, has now admitted that: “the story of Mrs Halappanavar asking for an abortion may have been a
little bit ‘muddled’ in the retelling, and there may have been no such request
after all.”[1] Holland has also told RTE, Ireland’s national television and radio
broadcaster, that she never ever suggested that an abortion would have saved Savita
Halappanavar’s life.
This is mind
blowing, to say the least. This
reporter, along with other pro-abortion proponents and secular media channels,
have launched a global crusade against Ireland’s pro-life laws based on the
fact that, according to them, an abortion would have saved this woman’s
life. Now she casually admits that this
is in fact not true. Do we see the media
now splashing this updated news on the front pages? No, because it does not suit them to do so.
I am of course
not surprised at this news. It is
exactly what I expected would eventually unfold. These people will do anything to promote
their agenda and I do mean anything.
I am more
annoyed and sad at the fact that Catholic newspapers, like The Southern Cross,
chose to jump on the bandwagon and felt it necessary to raise questions about
the Church’s teaching. Why could they
not have taken a positive approach and reinforced the Church’s position. It really was not the appropriate time to raise
questions about the Church’s teaching and how it is communicated. What was needed at that time was a reemphasis
of the Church’s pro-life teaching.
I really am sick
of people, like this editor, who do not have the courage to write openly in
defence of the Church’s teaching.
Instead they always take positions where they effectively sit on the
fence, taking neither position, but always able to easily morph when the story
develops and it suits them to do so. The
Church does not morph based on circumstances.
The Church faithfully communicates its pro-life message regardless of
how unpopular it may be. What we need in
South Africa is a person to edit our South African newspaper who has the
courage to do so as well.
[1] Life Site News, Reporter who broke Savita story admits: there may have been no request for a‘termination’, Dec 3, 2012
Read your response Mark in the Southern Cross.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion of the editor of the S C, is one of bewilderment, to his purpose of mission, as to the reliability of being a conveyer of authentic Church Teaching to the faithful.
Thhanks great post
ReplyDelete