Standing up for the Church

The joy Catholics will have felt at the worldwide plethora of goodwill towards the Catholic Church following the death of Pope John Paul II was short-lived as a man with a very specific public image was chosen to succeed him.

As we pointed out last week, the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Church’s former doctrinal chief, as Pope Benedict XVI was a bold move by the cardinal-electors. They must have known that their choice would not be universally popular, but they had confidence that the new pope would project a side to his personality the public was unaccustomed to.

They were right. Pope Benedict has won the hearts of many Catholics who were previously circumspect about his election; and even the strictest critics within the Church, such as the We Are Church movement, are expressing cautious optimism about Benedict’s pontificate.

Alas, all this has been lost on some in the secular press who were loath to miss an opportunity to engage in pope-bashing before their prejudices might be proved wrong.

Thus we had Sunday Times cartoonist Zapiro a master in his field whose pops at the Church have at times been on target depicting Pope Benedict as dragging the Church (represented as St Peter’s basilica) into the dark ages.

Meanwhile, the Australian columnist Neil McMahon in Cape Town’s Weekend Argus gave vent to his pent-up hostility to the Catholic Church he was raised in by engaging in a largely uninformed invective against Pope Benedict.

Of course, observers of a very public event, as the presentation of a new pope is, must have and do have a license to express their views, and the newspapers that print these are free to give them a platform (subject to their readership’s tolerance). It is not a newspaper’s function to censor comment, even if it is seen by many as being unfair and inappropriate.

The flip side of the bargain is that readers are entitled to disagree with opinions, and should be given a forum to express their exasperation with the content of a newspaper. In this, they have several options. Not buying a newspaper that has offended is one. Writing letters to the editor is another.

The latter has the obvious advantage of counterweighing a prejudice or a defective opinion. However, a poorly drafted response on an issue may cause greater harm to a cause than not writing one at all. Sometimes a noxious opinion is best ignored as the writer might wear criticism as a badge of honour.

As far as Catholic sensibilities are concerned, caution must be exercised in labelling comment as “anti-Catholic”. For example, when Sunday Times columnist Barry Ronge in a recent column made tasteless and inaccurate remarks about the Church and its pope, was he engaging in anti-Catholicism, or was he merely trying to amuse?

At the same time, Catholics must beware of criticising robust opinions that may offend them, lest their right of vigorous comment (on, say, the question of abortion) be compromised.

The Church cannot leave the onus of responding to denunciations to its members alone. The time has come that the hierarchy should set up a body that systematically monitors the media for comment on the Catholic Church, and responds to it appropriately and coherently when necessary to correct false perspectives and to give leadership to the faithful.