Is the Southern African Catholic Bishops’
Conference (SACBC) eventually beginning to take responsibility for the content
of The Southern Cross? Have the bishops now realised that much of the content
of this newspaper is entirely inappropriate, especially if the newspaper is
going to continue to be sold to Catholics right inside of our churches? There
are, thankfully, signs that this may indeed be the case!
I have for some time now, by choice, not
read The Southern Cross. This is because I find that this newspaper tends to
increase my blood pressure, makes me angry and causes me “desolate feelings of sadness and darkness of spirit”[1]. Fortunately
for me the Internet makes it possible for me to turn to other Catholic
newspapers and publications that do not have the same effect.
The last time when I did read anything from this
newspaper it was in response to a number of my readers who had written to me
and drawn my attention to a Southern Cross Blog written by Sr. Sue Rakoczy.
I knew instinctively, when I was told that
the writer was Sr. Rakoczy, that I could expect it to be some or other resentful
attack on the Church. This is after all exactly
what this woman has done in virtually every single one of her posts that I have
ever read on this newspapers website. I was not wrong.
Sr. Rakoczy effectively suggested that the
bishops were not discerning the will of God because, if they were, they would
know that they should “listen to women
who say that God is calling them to the ordained ministry or to gay and lesbian
persons in committed relationships.”[2]
The really surprising thing for me has
always been how The Southern Cross, despite numerous written complaints about
the content of Sr. Rakoczy’s writing, has allowed her to continue to use this
newspaper as a platform from which to launch these bitter and venomous attacks
on the Church. I have always thought and
still do think, that this is disgraceful.
In my humble opinion, if Sr. Sue Rakoczy
wants to attack the Church, she should at least have the decency to go off
and start her own Blog and attract her own readers. It really is unacceptable that Sr. Sue
Rakoczy has been so extremely rude and unethical as to piggyback on this
newspapers audience in order to launch her attacks on the Church. It shows really poor form.
It is also equally poor form for the newspapers
editor, Gunther Simmermacher, to give Sr. Sue Rakoczy express permission to
attack the Church in this way, using the Southern Blog. That the editor gave
express permission for her to do so is evident from the fact that the editor tolerated
her writing without censure and also from the fact that he has on occasion defended
her writing on the Southern Blog, to me.
The editor and Sr. Rakoczy would do well to
remember that this newspaper exists only because the bishops continue to give
this newspaper access to Catholics in the pews. There is no doubt that this
newspaper would have shut down a long time ago had it not been for this kind
access granted by the bishops.
Anyway, coming back to the point about the SACBC exercising control over the newspaper. I have now been alerted to the fact that The Southern Cross appears to
have shut down the “Southern Blogs” section of the newspaper’s website. The tab
to these Blogs has been removed and is no longer visible in the navigation
panel on the website. Unfortunately one can, rather sadly, still get access to
the historical contents of the Southern Blog, if one does a search of the
newspapers website. This is a great pity!
If you ask me, it would be best to simply
remove all of that content. The newspaper should leave a note advising any poor unsuspecting reader that the
contents have been removed because the editor, Gunther Simmermacher, should
never have allowed its publication on the Southern Blog in the first instance.
If the SACBC did have a hand in the removal
of the Southern Blog section of this newspaper, well done. It was and is
definitely time for the SACBC to begin to exercise greater control over this
newspaper. If The Southern Cross is not happy with that control, let it distribute
and sell its newspapers through another means, other than from the back and in
some cases front, of our churches.
These are two statements from the Editorial, April 3,
ReplyDeleteThe Southern Cross “Church and media.” that are to me problematic.
1) “Most Church leaders are notinstructed in communications through the media. It is therefore necessary that
professional Catholic communicators be engaged in the formulation of a coherent
media strategy, and provide training to selected spokespersons.”
2) “Likewise, there is little to be gained from ascribing a
sinister plot to the BBC interview in which Cardinal Wilfrid Napier argued the point that paedophiles might require psychological treatment instead of incarceration.”
Jesus was not only questioned, but ridiculed by the Pharisees; one could say that they engineered the crucifixion although some of of Pharisees believe in Jesus and did followed Him.
This is what Jesus had to say about them:” Luke 12:1. And
when great multitudes stood about him, so that they trod one upon another, he began to say to his disciples:
Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees,
which is hypocrisy.”
Would Günther have advised Jesus and His disciples that they need a professional communicator to formulate a coherent media strategy to the Pharisees, when the posed questions on divorce and other matters?
The truth is they did not care about the answers; they cared about twisting Jesus words.
Our bishops are more than capable of dealing with the secular media. They are powerless if a reporter or editor chose to make distortions.
If there are some who believe in the sincerity of the secular media and consider the BBC at the pinnacle, of the brood of vipers, just Google “BBC distorts Catholic Teaching.”
If The Southern Cross is utterly useless in putting the record straight when our Cardinal or bishops words are distorted, then they should not offer their leaven.
Malcolm, I agree with you completely. I think Gunther Simmermacher has adequately displayed his true colors while at the helm of the Southern Cross. He lacks the courage of his convictions and is therefore completely incapable of speaking boldly in defence of the Church's leaders like Cardinal Napier. Instead he attempts to find a middle ground where he can pass without committing himself completely in defence of the Church and therefore maintain the approval of both the secular media/world and those in the Church who are naive enough to miss his game. He would probably describe his actions as 'diplomatic'. I think it is more accurate to use the term 'lukewarm'.
ReplyDeleteWhat is that saying about spitting out those who are lukewarm?
Mark, if one looks at the two statements, basically, Gunther is saying the bishops are incapable of dealing with the media. (which is rubbish.)
ReplyDeleteThat, the BBC is above board. (that is certainly rubbish.)
Therefor the fault is with the cardinal, and a catholic professional communicator,(whatever that is?) could sooth-say, Church teaching in a way that would placate the media. (more rubbish)
Yet the Southern Cross, refuses to explain to their readers, how the media have.maliciously distorted what our dear Cardinal had said. (That is true)