Yesterday The Southern Cross issued a notice on its
website stating that it was, with effect from the 16th of January
2013, shutting down the ability to comment on the newspapers online content.
The newspaper cites as the reason for this
decision the fact that the online comments were marked by a “a level of polemic and lack of charity,
sometimes including slanderous and even libellous statements, that stood in
direct breach of Christ’s 11th Commandment.” The newspaper stated further that when mutual
respect is lacking “fruitful debate is
impossible and cannot be facilitated by a forum that is truly Catholic.”
If the truth is to be told, this newspaper
has for years tolerated online comments that are quite frankly not “truly Catholic” and which were
specifically designed to not only convince Catholics that there are acceptable
alternatives to the teaching presented by the Magisterium, but also to muster
support for these contradictory views.
The newspaper has made no attempt to censor these in order to protect its readers and this in itself is a “direct breach of Christ’s 11th Commandment.”
The majority of the comments made on this
newspapers site during the last few years could be divided as coming from one
of two groups. One group being the group
who engaged in posting the type of comments referred to above, which were apparently
supported by the editor of the newspaper, despite him often stating that this
perceived support was not true. This
group effectively consisted of three individuals, not counting the editor. This group showed absolutely no respect for the true teaching of the Church. Instead they clearly held the belief that the Church's teaching on Faith and Morals was open to constant reconsideration and change.
Counter to the above group was that group of
commenters who made a point of drawing attention to any of the fallacies contained in either the actual published section of
the newspaper or in the online comboxes.
This group was larger than the first, consisting of at least ten
members, though its size has over time been diminished as a result of some of
its members being blocked by the editor, or because they simply gave up in
utter disgust at the seemingly uphill battle of responding to these dissenting
voices, which was of course not helped by the perceived support of the editor for the first group.
Some of the views of the first group, that
was challenged robustly and vociferously by the second group, was: ordination of
women, gay marriage, doctrine of Original Sin, use of contraception, Holy
Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, Holy Communion for Protestants,
abandoning Latin, the primacy of conscience without deference to the
Magisterium, New Age prayer techniques and accusations that the Church’s
teaching on homosexuality is responsible for gay teen suicide.
It is interesting that the final event, that
appears to have led to the comboxes being closed, was when one of the commenters
from the first group who presents dissenting views, was challenged about whether he,
as a Catechism/RCIA teacher, presented any of his dissenting ideas, particular
about homosexuality, in these teaching sessions. He failed to respond to the question. The editor then deleted the question without
explanation. The question was later
reposted and again the editor deleted it.
Why such a reasonable question about the quality of content being
presented in Catechism/RCIA classes would be deleted is, quite frankly, beyond
me. Instead challenges and questions of this nature, which serve to get to the truth, are deemed by the editor to be “slanderous and even libellous”.
Following the announcement that the combox
had been closed I received a number of emails that expressed this to be a
victory for Catholicism. The editor has
long been accused of being sympathetic, even supportive of this first group who so frequently
presented dissenting views, though the editor has denied this. This
accusation was reinforced over a period of time by the editor’s own actions and
comments, which included blocking those who challenged these dissenters from
commenting, or redacting and even completely deleting the challengers comments. At no time was any one of the persons who
supported or promoted the dissenting views subject to the same actions by the
editor. If it was, it was not done publicly as with the second group. The victory in getting the comboxes closed
means that we now no longer need to be concerned that these dissenters can use
a Catholic forum to present their cleverly disguised, dissenting views, as
acceptable Catholic positions. The risk
that Catholic readers will be confused and mislead by the online combox content of this
newspaper has therefore now been eliminated and it therefore no longer matters whether the editor does or does not support the first group.
What now remains is a desperate need to get
our bishops to focus on the published content of this newspaper. This newspaper has a tendency to present content
and ideas that promote controversy. It
seems to me that this editor and newspaper believes that they have the duty to
act as the self-appointed watchdog of Catholic hierarchy on behalf of South
African Catholics. This is of course
very definitely not the role of this newspaper!
The latest editorial is one such perfect
example. The editorial presents the
subject of the discontinued Soho Masses as if it both agrees and disagrees with the action. This lukewarm, politically correct approach,
which this editor so frequently adopts in his editorials, is unhelpful and not
“truly Catholic”. Why not highlight, as other Catholic
publications have done, what the dangers of continuing the Soho Masses were and
why we Catholics should support Archbishop Nichols decision. There are sufficient secular media outlets
available, plus television coverage, that will publish the counter arguments
and present the politically correct positions, but never the Church’s and the
Archbishop’s position.
The Southern Cross is also guilty of often
publishing content that fails to express with absolute clarity exactly what the
true teaching of the Magisterium is. It often
leaves a margin for misunderstanding and even the possibility of Catholics
mistakenly believing that some of the discussed alternative ideas may in fact be
acceptable positions for them to hold as Catholics.
We cannot permit our Catholic Faith and
Morals to be diluted, not least of all by a Catholic newspaper that is sold to
Catholics from within our churches. We
need our bishops to guarantee us protection from any such harmful content, no
matter how minor it may appear.
I leave you with these extracts from Canon
Law:
Canon 823 §1: “In order to preserve the integrity of the
truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right
to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian
faithful through writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand
that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or
morals be submitted to their judgment and have the duty and right to condemn
writings which harm correct faith or good morals.”
Canon 827 §4: “Books or other writings dealing with
questions of religion or morals cannot be exhibited, sold, or distributed in
churches or oratories unless they have been published with the permission of
competent ecclesiastical authority or approved by it subsequently.”
