Catholic Press – ‘duty to report truth’

Sydney
25 August 2002

Stem cells: Cancer risk warning

Stem cell debate: the issues

Will John Paul II see Poland again?

Protesters meet on brothel plan

Song offers to ‘carry the flame within’ for John Paul

Here is the news Live on Radio 2

Sisters renew vows after 390 years ...

Canada Bay raises $50,000 for Burmese aid project

Catholic Press – ‘duty to report truth’

Religious reporting ‘important to ABC’

Editorial: The good priest

Letters: Change the words

Conversation: No bullies allowed in his oasis of harmony - Br Nicholas Harsas, primary school principal

Reflections: Priests can be youthful at any age

Would a war against Iraq be just?

‘Lost for words’ in moment with Pope

Toronto and the witness of youth

Battle to help ‘dual diagnosis’ victims

Inspirations: ‘Courage and strength’

Catholic Press – ‘duty to report truth’

By Fr Brian Lucas

Popular media needs images that are concrete and ideas that are simple. It needs personalities, not ideas. The best personalities are those who will say the most outrageous things. Carefully measured and balanced statements are boring.

Personalities are more attractive if they are unusual so we have a media that promote clericalism; within the Church we understand how the majority of activity and membership is non-clerical but outside (especially in media) it is thought to be highly centralised and clerical. We might have lay experts in some area of Church life but often media only want clerics as spokespeople.

The art of communication, therefore, is to find a language to convey religious dogma effectively. Not many Church leaders are good at this.

We also have to face the fact that some journalists are ignorant of the Church. I had a call once from a journalist about something. I explained that this involved the Anglican Church and he had rung the wrong place. ‘Anglican Church’ – he said – ‘is that different to you!’ Some journalists shop around until they find what they presume the Church’s position will be. Some try to find controversy at all costs. I have been asked to comment specifically on the abuse scandal. I need to say at the outset that one single case of a person in authority in the Church abusing that position to harm another is despicable and indefensible. One of the problems in trying to explain general policy issues or deal with specific cases is the perception that any such comment or qualification or questioning of allegations involves ‘cover up’ or a lack of concern for victims.

May I give just one example arising out of recent events. It is the question of paying money.

Payments to victims have been described as ‘hush money’ and standard confidentiality clauses are then dubbed ‘hush clauses’.

There are three possibilities.

One strategy would be to pay someone money on condition or as an inducement that he or she not report the crime to the police. This is ‘hush money’. It is obviously wrong but I am not aware that this has happened or even been alleged.

The second possibility is that a victim claims that the Church organisation has done wrong, acted negligently and seeks compensation through the legal system. This happens. People fall down the church steps and sue. Children are hurt in the playground. They may have a legitimate grievance or the facts might not support their claim. The same with a claim involving abuse by someone in the Church. What happened? When? In what circumstances? Who in authority knew or ought to have known? Was there negligence? Is the claim actionable? How much would compensation be? These questions may not admit of obvious answers and we have a court system to adjudicate. Litigants and the insurers have to make commercial judgments about whether to defend the claim or settle, and for how much. Negotiations occur without prejudice and sometimes cases settle. Usually it is on terms not to be disclosed. Every media organisation does this with its defamation claims. It is not ‘hush money’ and the confidentiality clause is not a ‘hush clause’.

The third possibility is that the Church seeks to help a victim, outside the legal system, by some payment, for counselling or to assist in the process of healing. The Church’s protocol rightly says that such a payment should not be conditional on any secrecy.

This level of careful analysis is totally ignored in much media comment. Headlines reinforce stereotypes and all abuse is treated the same. Where in all this does the Catholic Press stand? I would expect that the Catholic Press would be a cut above stereotyping and the sort of sensationalist reporting that we have seen. It has a duty to report the truth. The truth will not be served either by exaggerating the story, by downplaying it or by ignoring what is clearly a matter of public concern.

You may be in a position to publish more considered analysis and explanation both of general principles and specific newsworthy cases. Catholics have a right to know what their leaders are doing and to have that scrutinised fairly. They will not expect to find it in the secular press. They will appreciate reading about it in your publications.

My final comment I borrow from an address to journalists by Pope John Paul II (in Brisbane in 1986): “Realise the opportunity you have not only to report on evil but to help eliminate it. “Realise the opportunity you have not only to report on suffering but to help alleviate it. “Realise the challenge you have not only to report good deeds but to encourage them. “Realise your dignity: To be the world’s witnesses at events which can influence its destiny; to be the lens through which others focus on reality; to be the lamp which casts light not only into the dark corners of human life but also on the pathway of the human pilgrimage; to give guidance, direction and reassurance to those who seek to walk securely in the company of their brothers and sisters towards union with God.”

Edited from the transcript of an address to the Australasian Catholic Press Association conference by Fr Brian Lucas, general secretary of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference.