Right to protest

by Editor · June 25, 2003

Catholics are entitled to feel outrage at the screening on South African television of a programme that slandered the Church.

The pay channel M-Net was reckless in screening the episode of the adult cartoon series South Park titled “Red hot Catholic love”, which implied that all clergy are paedophiles. It is difficult to understand how the station’s internal preview department could have found the show’s content suitable for South African audiences without anticipating the resentment this would create among Catholics.

M-Net’s negligence is exacerbated by its failure to ascertain whether the South Park episode had produced meaningful protest upon its premiere in the United States (it did), and by its failure to consult local Catholics in the media to ascertain the reaction it might arouse locally.

M-Net owes the Catholic public an apology; one that has not been forthcoming despite prompts from this newspaper.

Likewise, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa’s sidestepping of numerous complaints from local Catholics is shameful. The BCCSA is mandated to address instances of programming that is offensive to significant portions of the public. If ever a TV programme united Catholics in protest, the South Park episode did so. The BCCSA’s evident reluctance to investigate, never mind taking action, is a betrayal of their mandate.

The rationale that the programme was satirical does not wash. Satire often has a nasty way of turning into slander. The notion that the show was not defamatory because it concludes on a positive note (the pope gets crushed to death!) is an additional affront. The programme’s script constitutes hate speech.

It is encouraging that many Catholics have communicated their anger to the relevant parties. Fr Bonaventure Hinwood, quoted in our front page article this week, is right in suggesting that viewers may exercise their prerogative to vote with their remote controls when broadcasters screen anti-Catholic material.

However, we must not become habitual knee-jerkers, perceiving attacks on the Church behind every item of critical coverage, even when robustly expressed. Anti-Catholicism is best assessed by the breadth of reaction to it within the Catholic community. In other words, the litmus test ought to be whether reasonable Catholics across the board have taken offence.

Automated outrage may well backfire in two significant ways.

Firstly, if Catholic protest is perceived to be excessive or unreasonable, broadcasters may reduce genuine grievances to “those Catholics complaining again”. One may safely predict that they would see little need to act, even when action is warranted.

Secondly, unrepresentative protest can be divisive. The story of the late 1990s TV drama series Nothing Sacred is instructive. The show revolved around the experiences of young inner-city priests. As is the way with drama, the priests’ actions and perspectives did not always correspond strictly to the magisterium.

This artistic licence animated a particularly strident campaign by a US Catholic media watchdog group, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, resulting in the cancellation of the series after only one season.

Many Catholics whose discernment did not coincide with those of the League felt aggrieved at the forced demise of the show, one that took a benign view of the Catholic Church, presenting the vocation to the priesthood as a rewarding option.

Reaction to perceived attacks on the Church must be rational and inclusive. And when it is, our protest must be forceful and persuasive.