On Friday the Mail & Guardian tweeted:
“Archbishop of Durban Wilfred Napier: I don’t know any gays”. This tweet and the
subsequent tweets from others related to this, highlighted the intense need
that some people have to vilify the Church and its leaders. It also highlighted the extent to which prejudices
can cause people to misunderstand very simple statements like: “I don't know any homosexuals”.
The Cardinal’s statement, which was the
first line in an article
published by the Mail & Guardian, was used completely out of context. One
can only guess at why this was done.
Maybe it was done to attract more readers to the newspaper? Maybe it was
intended to vilify Cardinal Napier? Maybe Nic Dawes, the editor, needed to justify an upcoming income bonus?
The one liner was clearly used in an unethical
manner, whatever the motivation was for using it. The editor, Nic Dawes, showed
that he is prepared to sacrifice integrity for the sake of achieving his objectives.
I wrote about this in: “Mail & Guardian: How to Use A Sound Bite Unethically”.
Without getting into the issue of the context
in which Cardinal Napier said “I don't know any homosexuals”, I am fairly sure that we can
all agree that Cardinal Napier is clearly
not saying that he does not know of any homosexuals. He is also definitely
not saying that he has never met any homosexuals.
Pierre de Vos, who previously attacked
Cardinal Napier in his Blog, Constitutionally Speaking, is one of the few people on Twitter who I noticed had actually distinguished
between Cardinal Napier saying he 'knew' and he 'knew of'. The two terms, though very similar, clearly convey
a very different meaning.
Pierre de Vos acknowledged this difference
by tweeting an invite to coffee, clearly so that Cardinal Napier could get to 'know' some homosexuals.
Most people on Twitter seem to lack the discerning
abilities of Pierre de Vos.
Some people on twitter claimed that since they had received
the sacrament of Confirmation
from Cardinal Napier and were homosexual, that Cardinal Napier is clearly wrong in
saying he did not know any homosexuals. (I wonder how many people have received the sacrament of Confirmation
from Cardinal Napier in the approximately 32 years that he has been a bishop. How many of these does he 'know' and how many does he 'know of'. I don’t think any reasonable person will
expect that Cardinal Napier knows each and every one of them.)
There were other examples of people on
Twitter that misunderstood what Cardinal Napier had said, possibly because it suited some or other agenda.
Max du Preez tweeted: “Cardinal Napier never met a gay person,
Mbeki never met anyone with HIV/Aids…”
It seems Max du Preez wanted
to take this conversation in a particular direction and so why would he let something as simple as correctly
understanding a man’s words, stop him from doing so.
Here is another example of the Cardinal’s “I don't know any homosexuals” becoming “I have never met any homosexuals”.
There is nothing whatsoever anywhere in the
report in the Mail & Guardian, to suggest that Cardinal Napier ever said or
meant to say that he had never met homosexuals before or that he did not know
of any homosexuals. Yet there are countless
examples of people on Twitter who read exactly that into Cardinal Napier’s
words and then proceeded to ridicule him for that.
I have long stated that I believe the Church
needs media savvy people to help the Church and its leaders to engage
with the media. Having said that, if the media continues to
operate in such unethical ways as the Mail & Guardian did in this instance, the presence of the
best and most professional media savvy personnel will serve no useful purpose.
Similarly if Catholics, particularly practicing Catholics, use these opportunities to jump on the bandwagon, vent and put the boot into the Church and its leaders, because of their prejudices, what good is it going to be to have media savvy personnel helping?
Add to that the fact that the editor of our only South African Catholic
newspaper, Gunther Simmermacher, not only re-tweeted Max Du Preez’s
tweet, but then also chose to join in and used that highly unethical one liner to ridicule Cardinal Napier.
Great example shown by our Catholic newspaper editor to the editors of secular
media isn’t it?
Prejudice blocks any ability to see the
truth. The message that the Church is sharing, through the media, via people like Cardinal Napier will continue to be blocked while we have people, many sadly Catholic, who allow their prejudices to interfere with the message being received as it is intended.
