Carrying the cross of Catholicism

It is common to read opinion pieces by John Waters and Breda O'Brien in the Irish Times criticising the generalised media bias against the Catholic church. Given the absence of opinion writers who take an overt position against Catholicism, it is on the news pages that they discern this bias.

Some weeks ago Peter McCloskey, who was a victim of clerical sexual abuse as a child, committed suicide two days after his negotiations with the diocese of Limerick had broken down. His mother attributed responsibility for his death to the diocese of Limerick, in particular the adversarial attitude of their legal team.

Breda O'Brien's 22 April opinion piece in the Irish Times took issue with the media coverage of Peter's death, pointing out that suicide is a complex issue caused by a variety of factors. Although this is entirely correct, it is wrong to conclude that it is therefore impossible to identify any of the contributing factors – as O'Brien did. She attacked RTÉ's Miriam O'Callaghan for asking if the church bore "any responsibility for his death". O'Brien ignored the word "any" and claimed this "incendiary question" reinforced "the overly simplistic idea that a person or organisation can be 'responsible' for another person's decision to take their own life".

When a member of an organisation sexually abuses a child and the organisation then treats the victim in a hostile way, it is reasonable to ask its representative if it accepts some responsibility, particularly when the victim's family have expressed that opinion. One would hope that such questions would be asked of any organisation in such a situation. It is testament to the abiding strength of Catholicism in the Irish media that such a question can be painted as hostile. Despite the church being exposed as systematically protecting scores of child rapists over decades, it still controls the nation's schools and hospitals with barely a murmur of protest from our commentators.

Her article on 29 April, addressed another of those areas where she perceives that news reportage is particularly hostile to the church – the African Aids crisis. She criticised the media for concentrating on the church's disavowal of condoms, while ignoring other significant factors such as female education and poverty. Once again, her argument conflated two distinct positions. She assumed, incorrectly, that those who criticise the church's teaching on condoms believe that "condoms solve everything". Furthermore, she asked: "How likely is it that any pronouncement by any pope is going to be known or heeded?"

The answer is "very likely indeed". The church is a hierarchical institution and priests generally carry out the decisions of that hierarchy. They preach these decisions and impose them as policy upon the aid projects which they control. Millions have died from Aids in Africa and medical science has identified condoms as an important weapon against it. The Catholic church is peerless in Africa in terms of its moral influence. When it preaches that using condoms is a sin which may lead to eternal damnation, this is not helpful in the fight against Aids. It is particularly unhelpful when African societies are conservative and suspicious of Western health programmes. The church is probably the only organisation there which could persist with such counter-productive behaviour without its suitability as a recipient of public aid funds being widely called into question. Where's the bias there? p