It's comical to see that The Irish Times is still stoically claiming that authorities put the turn-out for today's Pro-life Rally in Merrion Square "between 15,000 and 20,000", while even RTE have now admitted that "around 30, 000 people took part".
I'm waiting to hear about the guy with a pro-choice t-shirt on O'Connell Street who will get equal billing as a "counter-demonstration".
And let's not forget clerical sex abuse!
Showing posts with label Irish media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Irish media. Show all posts
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Because the Irish Media isn't Anti-Catholic and It's Only Paranoia Amongst Catholics That Makes Them Say So...
...the very second headline on The Irish Times's coverage of the Eucharistic Congress-- after "12,000 Attend Eucharistic Congress"-- is "Protests greet start of Congress".
The misleading nature of the headline is revealed immediately below it:
"A number of small protests were staged at entrances to the Eucharistic Congress at Dublin's RDS today. Separate protests were staged by abuse survivors, a Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) group, Atheist Ireland and a parent and former Dublin school board member who wants his school named after someone other than former arcbishop of Dublin Dermot Ryan."
In other words, with the possible exception of the abuse victims (and what more can the Church do at this stage, really?), the usual Church-bashers and cranks. Twelve thousand worshippers given almost-equal billing with an undisclosed number-- how likely is it that you could fit them into a couple of phone booths?-- of embittered busybodies.
Undoubtedly there are protests outside the various political party conferences (I don't know the plural of Ard Fheis), as well as the conferences of trade unions and other interest groups. Do those protests merit such a prominent mention?
But, you know, everybody thinks the media is against them and Catholics are just shooting the messenger. Keep repeating the mantra, boys, and hope that makes everyone believe it.
If Pope Benedict slipped in the bath and suffered a minor injury, the Irish media would manage to get child abuse into a four-line report of the accident.
(P.S.: I should mention that this refers to the online edition of The Irish Times.)
The misleading nature of the headline is revealed immediately below it:
"A number of small protests were staged at entrances to the Eucharistic Congress at Dublin's RDS today. Separate protests were staged by abuse survivors, a Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) group, Atheist Ireland and a parent and former Dublin school board member who wants his school named after someone other than former arcbishop of Dublin Dermot Ryan."
In other words, with the possible exception of the abuse victims (and what more can the Church do at this stage, really?), the usual Church-bashers and cranks. Twelve thousand worshippers given almost-equal billing with an undisclosed number-- how likely is it that you could fit them into a couple of phone booths?-- of embittered busybodies.
Undoubtedly there are protests outside the various political party conferences (I don't know the plural of Ard Fheis), as well as the conferences of trade unions and other interest groups. Do those protests merit such a prominent mention?
But, you know, everybody thinks the media is against them and Catholics are just shooting the messenger. Keep repeating the mantra, boys, and hope that makes everyone believe it.
If Pope Benedict slipped in the bath and suffered a minor injury, the Irish media would manage to get child abuse into a four-line report of the accident.
(P.S.: I should mention that this refers to the online edition of The Irish Times.)
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Ireland's Got Religion
I am in danger of being accused of an obsession with The Irish Times letters page, but today I was rather amused that-- out of twenty-five letters-- no less than eight are about religion. They are on various subjects, headed (respectively) "Vatican and Dissenting Voices", "Mock Trial of Clergywoman", "C of I and Same-Sex Relationships", "RTE Board's Response to 'Mission to Prey'", "Cardinal Brady's Role Questioned", and "Anti-Christian Secularism".
Is religion really all that irrelevant to modern Ireland?
Is religion really all that irrelevant to modern Ireland?
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Is the Irish Media Really Biased Against Catholics?
I notice that today there are three letters in The Irish Times responding to a (truly awful) opinion piece earlier this week-- a piece that was written by a science writer named David Robert Grimes, under the headline "Evil, Militant Anti-Christian Secularism is simply a Myth".
The article was the usual thing, except even worse than usual-- it starts in the calm and reasoned tone that anti-religious writers like to assume, but soon descends (again as usual) to the standard schoolyard name-calling-- sky fairies, comparison of the Christian God to Zeus and Odin, and so forth. There is little to no actual argument in the article. Grimes complains of an assertion by John Waters that, if we accept the atheist worldview, we are simply the "accidental offspring of the pointless oozing of primordial slime”. He complains of hearing this argument "ad nauseum", confidently asserts that it is "utterly devoid of merit", and answers it-- or rather, completely fails to answer it-- in these swaggering lines:
In any case, I find it strange that some would see existence as pointless if it is not preordained and controlled by a curiously anthropomorphic higher power. Surely our existence on this wonderful planet, rife with staggering beauty and steeped in discovery is incredible – regardless of how we got here. Why denigrate all life just because it mightn’t have begun as described in a Stone Age tome ?
Oh, Doctor Grimes. You are simply missing the point. How can there be a meaning to life or the universe if that universe is not the creation of a divine Intelligence? Only intelligence creates meaning. Our own human intelligence can pretend to ascribe meaning to the universe, but in that case, that meaning and purpose is not intrinsic to the universe. It is simply a sort of make-believe. Existence is pointless in an atheistic universe.
My point in this post, however, is that the Irish Times letters page today carries three excellent responses to Dr. Grimes's piece, all of them criticizing his thesis from a religious point of view, and one of them (by an Alan French of Dun Laoghaire) really achieving the calm reason which Dr. Grimes merely affects :
[Grimes] says “frank discussion is clouded by often misinformed religious objections”. This sounds like, “If you don’t agree with me, your judgment is clouded.” By this logic, only the secularist view is unclouded. This sounds a bit like old-fashioned religious dogmatism! Secularism is a specific belief, which is subject to debate. It is not worthy of any special privilege in public life. People oppose it with good reason.
The Irish Times often carries letters which defend Catholic orthodoxy, as well as articles by David Quinn, John Waters, Fr. Vincent Twomey, and other conservative Catholics. RTÉ, too, gives airtime to these voices. I think Catholics should acknowledge this. I think we should acknowledge it especially when a newspaper publishes calm and intelligent letters from orthodox Catholics and Christians, since it would be easy for them simply to cherry-pick the most embarrassing or feeble responses, in order to simultaneously provide "balance" and show religious faith in a bad light.
I myself would not disagree that the Irish media is anti-Catholic-- the hostility of most presenters and journalists towards religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular is obvious. Still, that is their prerogative. The fact that news stories regarding Catholicism are coloured by that hostility (for instance, every report of a Papal speech focusing on questions such as child abuse and contraception, even if the Pope says nothing about them), is much more problematic.
The Irish media is anti-Catholic and unfair to Catholicism. But as long as there remains a right of reply, I think we should acknowledge a basic level of fairness. Otherwise we seem like relentless whingers.
The article was the usual thing, except even worse than usual-- it starts in the calm and reasoned tone that anti-religious writers like to assume, but soon descends (again as usual) to the standard schoolyard name-calling-- sky fairies, comparison of the Christian God to Zeus and Odin, and so forth. There is little to no actual argument in the article. Grimes complains of an assertion by John Waters that, if we accept the atheist worldview, we are simply the "accidental offspring of the pointless oozing of primordial slime”. He complains of hearing this argument "ad nauseum", confidently asserts that it is "utterly devoid of merit", and answers it-- or rather, completely fails to answer it-- in these swaggering lines:
In any case, I find it strange that some would see existence as pointless if it is not preordained and controlled by a curiously anthropomorphic higher power. Surely our existence on this wonderful planet, rife with staggering beauty and steeped in discovery is incredible – regardless of how we got here. Why denigrate all life just because it mightn’t have begun as described in a Stone Age tome ?
Oh, Doctor Grimes. You are simply missing the point. How can there be a meaning to life or the universe if that universe is not the creation of a divine Intelligence? Only intelligence creates meaning. Our own human intelligence can pretend to ascribe meaning to the universe, but in that case, that meaning and purpose is not intrinsic to the universe. It is simply a sort of make-believe. Existence is pointless in an atheistic universe.
My point in this post, however, is that the Irish Times letters page today carries three excellent responses to Dr. Grimes's piece, all of them criticizing his thesis from a religious point of view, and one of them (by an Alan French of Dun Laoghaire) really achieving the calm reason which Dr. Grimes merely affects :
[Grimes] says “frank discussion is clouded by often misinformed religious objections”. This sounds like, “If you don’t agree with me, your judgment is clouded.” By this logic, only the secularist view is unclouded. This sounds a bit like old-fashioned religious dogmatism! Secularism is a specific belief, which is subject to debate. It is not worthy of any special privilege in public life. People oppose it with good reason.
The Irish Times often carries letters which defend Catholic orthodoxy, as well as articles by David Quinn, John Waters, Fr. Vincent Twomey, and other conservative Catholics. RTÉ, too, gives airtime to these voices. I think Catholics should acknowledge this. I think we should acknowledge it especially when a newspaper publishes calm and intelligent letters from orthodox Catholics and Christians, since it would be easy for them simply to cherry-pick the most embarrassing or feeble responses, in order to simultaneously provide "balance" and show religious faith in a bad light.
I myself would not disagree that the Irish media is anti-Catholic-- the hostility of most presenters and journalists towards religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular is obvious. Still, that is their prerogative. The fact that news stories regarding Catholicism are coloured by that hostility (for instance, every report of a Papal speech focusing on questions such as child abuse and contraception, even if the Pope says nothing about them), is much more problematic.
The Irish media is anti-Catholic and unfair to Catholicism. But as long as there remains a right of reply, I think we should acknowledge a basic level of fairness. Otherwise we seem like relentless whingers.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
My Letter in the Irish Times yesterday
I had a letter in the Irish Times yesterday, responding to a Fintan O'Toole article:
Sir, – Fintan O’Toole (Opinion, May 1st) is entirely right when he criticises the Catholic Church in Ireland for its former slowness to react to clerical child abuse, and entirely wrong when he criticises it for disciplining priests who question defined Catholic doctrine – this too, let it be noted, hardly done with lightning speed, considering how long many of these figures have been undermining orthodox teaching.
He calls the Catholic Church “stupid” and says “it is doing a far better job of destroying itself than its worst enemies could dream of.” But the truth is that the Catholic Church existed long before any of the fashionable causes O’Toole espouses, and will continue to exist and flourish long after those causes are a footnote in history.
Perhaps the church’s critics might open their minds enough to accept that such an ancient institution has learned to look beyond the catch-cries of the moment in favour of enduring truths? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Fintan O’Toole (Opinion, May 1st) is entirely right when he criticises the Catholic Church in Ireland for its former slowness to react to clerical child abuse, and entirely wrong when he criticises it for disciplining priests who question defined Catholic doctrine – this too, let it be noted, hardly done with lightning speed, considering how long many of these figures have been undermining orthodox teaching.
He calls the Catholic Church “stupid” and says “it is doing a far better job of destroying itself than its worst enemies could dream of.” But the truth is that the Catholic Church existed long before any of the fashionable causes O’Toole espouses, and will continue to exist and flourish long after those causes are a footnote in history.
Perhaps the church’s critics might open their minds enough to accept that such an ancient institution has learned to look beyond the catch-cries of the moment in favour of enduring truths? – Yours, etc,
Friday, April 27, 2012
Father Brian D'Arcy Clapped in Irons by the Vatican!
Erm, no, not really. Instead, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has demanded he files his newspaper articles to a church censor before publication, when these articles touch upon matters of faith and morals.
One would think that this is eminently reasonable. Father D'Arcy (who has questioned Church teaching on clerical celibacy and homosexuality) has the platform that he does because he is a Catholic priest. If any Catholic priest uses this platform to air opinions contrary to Catholic teaching, it's a bit like a restaurant putting up an Egon Ronay plaque when they are not entitled to it.
Hopefully, Father D'Arcy, who is doubtless a very good man, will now use his talents to support Catholic teaching, rather than question it.
Meanwhile, The Irish Catholic this week reports on a new lay initiative to support the Pope and orthodox Catholic teaching. The Association of Catholic Faithful is sending a letter to the Pope in which they describe themselves as "reaffirming our fidelity to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, and to the Magisterium and teaching of the Catholic Church."
The article continues: "To add your name to this initiative, or the name of the apostolate or prayer group that you belong to, email your name, address and phone number (for verification purposes) to associationofcatholicfaithful@gmail.com or call 085-1295252".
This is a fine initiative. Unfortunately, in this world, dissent and opposition is given more attention than loyalty and service. We hear all about the wanton vandalism and puerile posturing of the May 1968 riots in Paris and throughout France, but who remembers that the Gaullist counter-demonstration was at least as big and possibly bigger than any of the radical gatherings? And that De Gaulle won a landslide in the election that year, supported by the great peacable and law-abiding majority?
One would think that this is eminently reasonable. Father D'Arcy (who has questioned Church teaching on clerical celibacy and homosexuality) has the platform that he does because he is a Catholic priest. If any Catholic priest uses this platform to air opinions contrary to Catholic teaching, it's a bit like a restaurant putting up an Egon Ronay plaque when they are not entitled to it.
Hopefully, Father D'Arcy, who is doubtless a very good man, will now use his talents to support Catholic teaching, rather than question it.
Meanwhile, The Irish Catholic this week reports on a new lay initiative to support the Pope and orthodox Catholic teaching. The Association of Catholic Faithful is sending a letter to the Pope in which they describe themselves as "reaffirming our fidelity to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, and to the Magisterium and teaching of the Catholic Church."
The article continues: "To add your name to this initiative, or the name of the apostolate or prayer group that you belong to, email your name, address and phone number (for verification purposes) to associationofcatholicfaithful@gmail.com or call 085-1295252".
This is a fine initiative. Unfortunately, in this world, dissent and opposition is given more attention than loyalty and service. We hear all about the wanton vandalism and puerile posturing of the May 1968 riots in Paris and throughout France, but who remembers that the Gaullist counter-demonstration was at least as big and possibly bigger than any of the radical gatherings? And that De Gaulle won a landslide in the election that year, supported by the great peacable and law-abiding majority?
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Heard on the Marian Finucane Show just now...
..."I've been working in the media for many years. We always hear the Catholic bishops complaining that the Church doesn't get a fair hearing. And then they behave like this!"
Not verbatim, and I don't know the name of the man who said it, but I assure you that's a fair rendering.
How do you argue with that anti-logic?
Along with this, several of the panel (it was a discussion regarding the Vatican disciplining dissident clerics) spoke about their desire for "change" in the Church.
How do you argue with the unthinking worship of "change"-- never "change" from, "change" to, "change" aspiring to a particular ideal which, when reached, will no longer require "change"-- but simply "change" simpliciter?
And when we get the change-- do we then desire change from that?
And change from that?
And change from that?
To what end? By what criteria? Against what ideal? For what motives? By what standard?
There are lots of words bandied about today that make me squirm. One is "comfortable." ("I'm not really comfortable with that phrase".) Another is "progressive". (Progress towards what?) Another is "conversation". (We need a "conversation" in society, in the Church. But surely the conversation has to arrive somewhere eventually?) Another is "exclusion". (All character and specialness would be drained from the world without exclusion of one form or other. A tweeny girls' sleepover party would be rather ruined by the addition of five strapping Hell's Angels.)
But surely the daddy of all blood-boiling, nebulous, mendacious, point-missing, thought-neutralising words-- when it is reduced to a mere fetish-- must be "change"!
Not verbatim, and I don't know the name of the man who said it, but I assure you that's a fair rendering.
How do you argue with that anti-logic?
Along with this, several of the panel (it was a discussion regarding the Vatican disciplining dissident clerics) spoke about their desire for "change" in the Church.
How do you argue with the unthinking worship of "change"-- never "change" from, "change" to, "change" aspiring to a particular ideal which, when reached, will no longer require "change"-- but simply "change" simpliciter?
And when we get the change-- do we then desire change from that?
And change from that?
And change from that?
To what end? By what criteria? Against what ideal? For what motives? By what standard?
There are lots of words bandied about today that make me squirm. One is "comfortable." ("I'm not really comfortable with that phrase".) Another is "progressive". (Progress towards what?) Another is "conversation". (We need a "conversation" in society, in the Church. But surely the conversation has to arrive somewhere eventually?) Another is "exclusion". (All character and specialness would be drained from the world without exclusion of one form or other. A tweeny girls' sleepover party would be rather ruined by the addition of five strapping Hell's Angels.)
But surely the daddy of all blood-boiling, nebulous, mendacious, point-missing, thought-neutralising words-- when it is reduced to a mere fetish-- must be "change"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)