Ed reaches for his shoehorn

Cardinal Newman, Remain 

This morning's Sunday on Radio 4 was dominated by the canonisation of Cardinal Newman. During Edward Stourton's opening chat with his old chum at The Tablet Christopher Lamb, our Ed managed to shoehorn Brexit into the discussion: 

Ed Stourton: And I see that the British Ambassador to the Holy See has been quoted as suggesting he might also offer a model for post-Brexit Britain. 

Christopher Lamb: Well, yes, a case is being made that Newman is a Remainer. Father Ignatius Harrison, who is the Actor of the sainthood calls for Newman said that on Friday. So obviously we can't confirm or deny that, but there is a sense that Newman wouldn't have wanted to cut himself off from Europe at a spiritual and cultural level, though of course, I think Newman, as I say, can be colonised for any argument and then people want to see him in a a broad sense, but he was both a quintessentially English figure but also a man of the Roman church. 

I can't say that I want to cut myself off from Europe at a spiritual and cultural level either. The EU, of course, isn't Europe.

Wonder if Elgar would have been a Leave voter?

"His grubby organisation"

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse published its findings this week on allegations linked to the Archdiocese of Birmingham when the present leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, served archbishop there. The IICSA found that the then Archbishop of Birmingham defended the reputation of the church rather than protecting children in the face of allegations of sexual abuse.

The BBC has some involvement in the story. According to The Guardian:

In 2003 the BBC broadcast a documentary that traced [serial child abuser and priest James] Robinson to a caravan park in the US. Nichols issued a press release complaining that the programme was “hostile” to the Catholic church. This response was “misplaced and missed the point”, the IICSA report said."

Veteran BBC reporter Hugh Sykes's take on this is quite startling:

Putting 'cardinal' in inverted commas and describing the whole Catholic Church as a "grubby organisation" suggests real anger from Hugh.

That would be both a Catholic and a BBC bias matter

Old hobby-horse time again (sorry)...

Frankie

It's probably a peculiar quirk of this particular, peculiar blog that our very first posts concentrated, in minute detail, on a BBC radio programme most people doubtless sleep through even if they're aware of it - which most people aren't - namely Radio 4's Sunday. 

Our very first 'hit' at Is the BBC biased? was to stir up a veritable hornet's nest over what might seem a very recherché issue: the programme's massively pronounced bias towards a particular Catholic magazine, The Tablet, and the total exclusion of its main UK rival The Catholic Herald.

This very heavy bias seemed far worse because of the fact that the programme's main presenter Edward Stourton was (and is) a trustee of The Tablet. 

For newbies, and to put it crudely, The Tablet is a liberal Catholic magazine (the Catholic Guardian, so to speak) and The Catholic Herald is a conservative Catholic magazine (the Catholic Spectator, so to speak). 

Over 22 months of close monitoring (without deliberately looking or, to begin with, knowing anything about The Tablet or the Catholic Herald) I'd found literally dozens upon dozens of appearances on Tablet trustee Ed's programmes by liberal Catholic Tablet guests and literally no appearances - not a single one! - by Catholic Herald writers.

It was as stark an example of BBC bias as it was possible to imagine (however little it mattered to me or you personally).

It helped that the then head of the Daily Telegraph's blog (RIP), Damian Thompson, was closely associated with the Catholic Herald and a sharp critic of the BBC and that I tweeted him a link to our most damning post.

After the storm broke the programme instantly dropped its Tablet horde for a couple of years or more, and even invited on some Catholic Herald guests for a while. 

Things, alas, have begun slipping again recently in the past couple of years. Tablet guests are returning and the Catholic Herald guests have vanished again. 

*******

And then (liberal) Pope Francis replaced (conservative) Pope Benedict.

And suddenly on Sunday, the papacy could do no wrong (for a few years).

It often felt like I was listening to puff pieces for Pope Francis after years of hatchet jobs on Pope Benedict.

(Please feel free to scour our archives for very lengthy proofs of that).

*******

And another thing I found in my intense study of Sunday (2010-12) was that the programme, in the years of conservative Catholic pope Benedict XVI, focused with relentless intensity (and quite rightly so) on Roman Catholic child abuse and was never afraid to question Pope Benedict's role in the matter, with Ed Stourton (never a fan of Pope Benedict) often in the thick of that questioning.  

I've listened to every episode of the programme both before and since that original study and I can say, with total confidence, that the emphasis on Catholic child abuse and the Pope's attitude to it dropped massively after Pope Benedict resigned and Pope Francis took over.

It didn't disappear, but it became much less of a preoccupation.

(And Anglican abuse came into sharper focus).

And the Pope-of-the-day's position on the matter has rarely been raised since.

Benny

So, to put it another way, until today's edition I've never heard anything on Sunday that focused sharp questions on Pope Francis's reaction to clerical child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church.

It's as if, once the hated Pope Benedict had shuffled off this Vatican coil into nearby retirement, and, as a nice, liberal, PC pope was elected in his place, everything came good for Sunday.

Even last week, when Sunday broadcast a special edition to mark Pope Francis's visit to Ireland, the then-breaking story that Cardinal Viganò - an archbishop of the Catholic Church who had served as the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States from 2011 to 2016 and who had previously served as Secretary-General of the Governorate of Vatican City State from 2009 to 2011 - had accused the present pontiff of covering up a child abuse scandal didn't get a mention on the programme.

Some listening (conservative) Catholics were staggered and wondered why. And Damian Thompson has been tweeting about liberal media double standards all week ever since. 

Well, today the programme finally turned to the issue of Pope Francis and his alleged role in covering-up a child abuse scandal and, knowing what I know of the programme and its past history, I suspected it would come out in support of Pope Francis in much the same-if-also-polar-opposite way it used to come out against Pope Benedict. 

So did it focus sharp questions on Pope Francis?

Well, it was balanced enough in that it featured a Catholic guest who thinks Pope Francis has questions to answer (Edward Pentin) and another Catholic guest who thinks it's the Pope's "right-wing" critics who have questions to answer (Austen Ivereigh).

In light of everything I've mentioned earlier in this post (and at this blog since its inception), however, it didn't surprise me in the slightest that Edward Stourton put challenging question after challenging question to Edward Pentin (the conservative Catholic) whilst giving Austen Iverleigh (the liberal Catholic) an easy ride. The difference in tone was palpable.

Nor did it remotely surprise me that Edward Stourton, in a later interview with Vincent Nichols, Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, went way beyond BBC impartiality and, as if in passing, compared the claims of Cardinal Viganò (and Edward Pentin) about cover-ups around Pope Francis to Dan Brown novels - a comparison Ed brought into the conversation.

Nor did it remotely surprise me that Ed introduced Mr Pentin as a "conservative" whilst not introducing Mr Ivereigh as a "liberal". (This was classic 'bias by labelling').

Nor did it remotely surprise me that Ed (Tablet trustee) failed to mention that Austen Ivereigh - the man he gave an easier ride to - used to be a deputy editor of The Tablet.

I feel as if I'm somewhat entering into an ecumenical matter here, but the bias seems very clear to me, especially perhaps because I remain detached from it (not being a Catholic, not being religious).

Please listen to the programme for yourself and this interview and see if you see what I mean.

"Alas, it didn’t make the final cut"

Talking about the Spectator, there's also a piece by Freddy Gray on "being a media Catholic", which ends with a revealing BBC-related anecdote:

On the whole, however, I didn’t face overt anti-Christian prejudice so much as bewilderment. The producers, runners and interviewers —  especially on the BBC and Channel 4 —  just couldn’t believe that, in their day and age, people still accepted what the Catholic church teaches, especially on sex. They tried to be sympathetic, but ended up being patronising. The best example came during a Have Your Say phone-in session on BBC World News. Again, the subject was gay adoption. After an hour or so of recording, the show finished and the producers wanted ‘out takes’ for the repeat edit. I was asked to adopt various poses as though I had been listening intently. The presenter reminded me that a gay man had called from Mexico to say that the Church had made his life hell. ‘Perhaps you could look surprised,’ she suggested, delicately. ‘I mean Mexico is a very Catholic country, so as a Catholic maybe you wouldn’t expect a gay man to be there.’ A gay man! In Mexico! I found the request so ridiculous that I pulled an over-the-top horrified face, as if I had just seen a poltergeist. Alas, it didn’t make the final cut.

A wringing of hands

Another report on tonight's BBC One News at Six that struck me as worth blogging about was Caroline Wyatt's piece on Pope Francis's opinions on the family.

Admirable as Caroline Wyatt's reporting can often be, this piece leant heavily towards the concerns of liberal Catholics - who were hoping for more from Pope Francis.

She mentioned such people's hopes but didn't mention (or consider) the reactions of conservative Catholics, who might have been hoping for less from Pope Francis...

....which is par for the course for the BBC.

And her chosen 'vox pop' (alongside the liberal cardinal) was a (male) gay couple unhappy with how things have turned out. Their family includes three children - two young boys and a little girl - and they wanted the Pope to give them his blessing.

I saw that and saw red. It seemed like typical BBC thoughtlessness (and naked BBC bias). 

Though socially liberal myself (libertarian even), the thought of a little girl and her two little brothers growing up without a mother filled me with deep unease. No young family should lack a mother.

It's only while writing this post that it struck me that circumstances might have intervened. It might not have been a 'lifestyle choice' matter. 

Maybe the mother died, leaving the father to look after the children. Maybe the father then found love with another man. Maybe the children are better off with their (loving) remaining biological parent and his (male) partner. And maybe that unhappy situation should be blessed by a loving church?

And maybe I should give up being 'a right-wing, anti-BBC blogger' and apply to co-present Sunday on Radio 4 instead.

Groundhog Day

It's almost a year to the day since I wrote this about Radio 4's Sunday: 

It's rare that you get a Conservative MP on Sunday - it's usually Labour or Liberal Democrat MPs who appear on the programme - but Conor Burns MP was invited on today to criticise his own Catholic bishop for excommunicating him over his vote for gay marriage. (This is a classic Sunday story.)

I may not be a Catholic but I've become slightly more clued-up on Catholic matters over the past couple of years or so, and if there's one English 'bogey-Bishop' for the likes of Edward Stourton and his fellow liberal Catholic Tabletistas, it's the new(ish), conservative-traditionalist Bishop of Portsmouth, Philip Egan. And, lo and behold, here he was being slated on Sunday - just as he's been slated in recent days in The Tablet. 

In fact, although I've never heard about  the story before, as soon as an unnamed bishop was mentioned as being the 'villain of the piece' I guessed it might be Bishop Egan. 

After the Bishop was well-and-truly bashed, Edward Stourton said, curtly, that they'd asked Philip Egan to come onto the programme to respond, and he'd said "No." I wonder why.

Well, this morning's Sunday began with the following:

Edward Stourton: Welcome to Sunday. The Bishop of Portsmouth has told his priests that they must review the charities they deal with to make sure their aims are compatible with Church teaching. A Catholic MP for the diocese tells us what he thinks is wrong with Bishop Egan's list of guidelines:

Catholic MP: I think it's very legalistic. It's very rigid. And my worry about it? It will cause people worry and anxiety and perhaps have them step back from involving themselves in things that could otherwise be very good for them and very good for their communities.

Edward Stourton: We'll also have the Bishop's response. 

That Catholic MP turned out to be Conor Burns MP again.

(And, needless to say, The Tablet have been covering the story too - and noticeably less favourably to the Bishop than The Catholic Herald). 

It's déjà vu time again!

This time, however, Bishop Egan did appear for interview - and we'll see how that turned out later.

The sort of Church teaching that Bishop Egan has in mind is that concerning matters like contraception. As he's a Catholic social conservative, he disapproves of  such things. 

Edward Stourton: As an example he cites the case of a domestic dispute resolution charity which has been endorsed by the gay rights organisation, Stonewall. The Bishop argues that becoming involved with such a charity could be seen, and I'm quoting here, "to constitute formal cooperation in gravely immoral acts" [and listen to Ed tone of voice. It changes when it comes to that quote from a straight tone of voice to a loud and somewhat incredulous one - as if he's telling us all that he doesn't believe such things].

After Mr. Burns had slated the bishop in an interview - with Ed Stourton's help ["And you think this will be actively damaging to the people it's sent to?", "You're a Catholic yourself. What do you think the Pope would make of it?"] - Bishop Egan duly appeared [in a pre-recorded interview]. 

It was pretty much inevitable what was going to to happen next - and it most certainly did happen. Ed Stourton went for him - repeatedly interrupting him, asking much longer questions that usual and sounding (especially for Ed) unnecessarily fired-up. 'Unfriendly' and 'hostile' were the words for it. 

Now, if that isn't Ed's liberal Catholic bias coming out into the open again, I'm not quite sure what is. 

This may not be the kind of bias that matters to you but it's pretty clearly bias nonetheless, and a BBC presenter shouldn't be showing it.


P.S. For any passing visitors from the Spectator (h/t Damian Thompson), please click on the link below (to this self-same blog) for the full context:

http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/take-one-tablet-three-times-day.html

Popes, Sharia Watch UK and Wonga

The canonisations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II inevitably dominated this morning's edition of Sunday. 

Two former popes have never been canonised on the same day before - and, to make it even more historic and unprecedented, they'll be canonised by two living popes - Francis and Benedict XVI. (That's a lot of popes!)

Even though the BBC already has two experienced Rome correspondents - the veteran David Willey and former Middle East correspondent Alan Johnson - Sunday followed hallowed BBC tradition and dispatched William Crawley to the Eternal City as well, which must have been very nice for him. In fairness to William, he's quite good at describing events like this but he wasn't given much time to do so, and Sunday chose to cram in several other BBC correspondents too:

As Pope Francis prepares to make history by canonising Popes John XXIII and John Paul II in front of millions in Rome today, Edward Stourton talks to Cardinal Vincent Nichols about what this event means for the Catholic Church. We have live reports from William Crawley in Rome and the BBC's Adam Easton in Poland. The BBC's Rome Correspondent, Alan Johnson, reports on the build up to this historic event in Vatican City and Trevor Barnes assesses the life of Pope John XXIII.

Ed Stourton rounded things off by interviewing Cardinal Vincent Nichols, asking questions loaded with liberal Catholic sensibility. The usual Tabletistas may have been physically missing, but they were there in spirit through Ed, and the underlying Tablet-style message was clear: the fast-track canonisation of John Paul II is wrong, but the canonisation of the saintly John XXIII (and, by extention, Vatican II) is a good thing.

There was also time for two other Sunday favourites though - discussion of Muslim matters and the Church of England's controversial involvement with Wonga.  

As regards the latter, Ed Stourton interviewed Edward Mason of the C of E's ethical advisory group and, adopting an incredulous tone of view, badgered him over why it's taking so long for the Church to disinvest in Wonga and questioned him over whether the Church should be involved in venture capital at all - all asked from the 'Wonga is wicked' standpoint of course. 

The discussion of the former involved crossbencher Baroness Cox and lawyer Aina Khan debating whether Sharia Councils are unfairly treating Muslim women seeking divorce settlements. 

This was occasioned by the launch of Sharia Watch UK this week. 

Caroline Cox hosted the event in parliament, and says that sharia law is inherently discriminatory ("fundamentally against the principles of our country", "fundamentally discriminating against women"). A Muslim woman came to her and told her of her bad experiences at the hands of sharia courts here, saying that she'd come to the UK to escape from sharia law but found that the enforcement of sharia law within the UK was actually worse than in her own country. Aina Khan, who specialises in achieving solutions using Sharia law principles in the English courts, admitted that there are problems but maintained that such discriminatory practices are not inherent to sharia law and that they merely reflect the culture of different countries' ways of proceeding. 

Edward Stourton was fairly hands-off here, though his questioning was more challenging towards Baroness Cox and he did ask Aina Khan a leading question that helped advance her side of the argument.

And such was this week's Sunday. (P.S. As it's Sunday, please can we have some sun today?)

Addressing the problem directly?

During the reign of Pope Benedict XVI, sections of the BBC personally hostile to Benedict - especially Ed Stourton's Sunday and the BBC's Rome correspondent David Willey - would feature regular criticism of Benedict's Vatican for doing too little about priestly child abuse in the Catholic Church. 

Here's one 2010 example from David Willey:

Pope Benedict has plenty of opportunity during his brief weekend visit to Malta to talk about the clerical sexual abuse which has scandalised members of his faith around the world, and created a credibility crisis for the world's largest Church, the Church of Rome.

But he has chosen to speak in generalities and metaphor rather than to address the problem directly.

Given that Sunday has been rigorous in its coverage of child abuse with regards to the Catholic Church, covering its every twist and turn, it will be interesting to see how (or if) it covers this story:

The former Pope, Benedict XVI, defrocked nearly 400 priests over a two-year period for allegedly raping and molesting children, according to a leaked Vatican document.

That's from Sky News today, and the Sky report goes on to say:

Before becoming pope, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger took action after determining that bishops around the world were not following church policy and putting accused clerics on trial in church tribunals.

This is not the picture of Benedict painted over time by Messrs Stourton and Willey, so how will they report this story?

Probably grudgingly, and perhaps in the manner of BBC News's online take on the same story which briskly mentions that "Close to 400 priests were defrocked in only two years by the former Pope Benedict XVI over claims of child abuse, the Vatican has confirmed", merely adding:

Benedict, who was elected in 2005, took the helm as the scandal of child sex abuse by priests was breaking.

We'll see.

Today's cardinal number: 19

Poor Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster. 

On the day Pope Francis makes him a cardinal, the BBC's report on the Pope's move relegates his good news to the final two paragraphs. 

Yes, the good old internationalist BBC is far more interested in the new cardinals from the Global South.

This is how they begin their report:

Pope Francis is to appoint 19 new cardinals next month, including churchmen from Haiti and Burkina Faso, reflecting his commitment to the poor.

Well done Cardinal-to-be Vincent!

Faith schools, Pope Francis, U.S. conservatives, the Central African Republic and the Buddha

Back to this week's Sunday on Radio 4, hosted by Edward Stourton.

What else was there besides happy memories from all concerned of Nelson Mandela? Well,  there was time for some of the usual sorts of thing as well.

There's usually some left-wing campaign that needs plugging, and this week's chosen left-wing campaign group was the Fair Admissions Campaign. They claim that faith schools discriminate against poor pupils. (It's part of their more general campaign to abolish faith-based selection completely in all state-funded schools). They are supported by various secularist organisations, unions, left-wing MPs, equality think tanks, etc. Kevin Bocquet went to - and challenged with their findings - a Jewish and a Catholic faith school (Quelle surprise!). We did hear from both sides of the argument during the report, but it was tilted towards the campaign by having the BBC's Gillian Hargreaves describe the Church defenders' responses with the somewhat dismissive word "utterances", by Kevin's open encouragement to Radio 4 listeners to check out the map on the Fair Admissions Campaign's website, and (almost always a sign of where the heart of a report on Sunday really lies) by giving the last word to a campaigner from the F.A.C. (the programme's favourite Jewish guest, Jonathan Romain).

No less surprising was another piece about Pope Francis, introduced with the words "Pope Francis has, by and large, had a very good press on this side of the Atlantic." (Well, yes, especially on Ed Stourton's Sunday - unlike his predecessor Benedict XVI.) 

This report, however, looked at the less favourable take on Pope Francis from some U.S. conservative Catholics, who aren't impressed with his anti-capitalist rhetoric or his apparently more liberal tone on certain sexual matters. It was presented by the BBC's very own Matt Wells, a reporter who sprays labels (like "hardline", "defensive" and "extreme") around like confetti whenever he reports on the doings of U.S. conservatives, yet never does the same when talking about U.S. liberals. (Funny that!) 

His three expert 'talking heads' were firmly on Francis's side (and the most pro-Francis one was, as usual, given the closing words of the report). Besides some guarded comments from one parishioner, the only voice from the critical conservative camp - the side we were meant to be hearing from - was Rush Limbaugh (a clip from one of his rants) - as if ranting Rush were really representative of that wing of Catholic opinion in America (especially as he's not even a Catholic!). Couldn't Matt be bothered to try to locate and talk to a less easily-dismissable U.S. conservative voice? Did he even try? Probably not. 

Typical biased Matt Wells reporting. 

In the course of the report though Matt played an extract from the Pope's favourite piece of music - the Et incarnatus est from Mozart's Mass in C minor. Good choice, Your Holiness!

There was also a report from the Central African Republic where, as you may already know, the country's Muslim minority spawned first a rebellion, then a military coup and now a staggeringly vicious marauding Muslim militia (alongside Muslim mercenaries from Chad and Sudan) which began murdering, raping and looting on a massive scale, attacking Christians and Christian churches. Vigilante Christian militias formed in response, to fight back and defend both themselves and their churches. It's a desperate situation, verging (according to some) on genocide - and there's been more than enough of those in Central Africa over the past twenty years. 

That's the version of events that I've gathered from following the story over recent months. The account on Sunday gave an impression of the chaos wrought by the conflict there but gave such a scanty account of its origins that most Radio 4 listeners would surely have been left scratching their heads. If I'd been listening to this discussion between Ed Stourton and the BBC correspondent in the area, I'd have assumed that the problem began with the Christians attacking the Muslim population - especially as that's where the BBC reporter began when reporting the very latest developments, and that - now - both sides are as bad as the other. That's not a fair impression for them to have given us, as far as I can see. 

Still, at least the programme had an interesting feature that would have appealed to the programme's Buddhist listeners. As I've said a fair few times before, Buddhists (like Hindus and Sikhs) get a raw deal from Sunday. They rarely get any attention from the programme. (Sikhs fair worst of all). 

The programme discussed some intriguing archaeological discoveries about the Buddha, possibly pinning down the exact place of his birth in the gardens of an active shrine in Lumbini, Nepal and plausibly providing a much firmer date for his date of birth - some time in the sixth century B.C. Until now, that date has been subject to wildly diverging speculation. 

The work - a mixture of science and logic - was done by a 15-strong British team, led by Professor Robin Coningham of Durham University, so well done to them. Nothing is absolutely proven though, so it's far from being the end of the story. Still, it's good to see British academics giving our Buddhist friends some fascinating research. I'd love to know what they make of it out East. 

If Sunday didn't seem to be constantly looking through its own narrow, liberal lens and if it didn't give the impression of pushing various angles so often, think what an absorbing programme it could be.

As this has been a rather serious post, let's end with some Buddhist jokes:

Two monks were sitting in a cave. One was silent. The other one said, ‘I could have done that’.

Q: What happens when a Buddhist becomes totally absorbed with the computer he is working with? A: He enters Nerdvana.

A Zen master once said to me, ‘Do the opposite of whatever I tell you.’ So I didn't.

'Sunday' from Pacific Quay

Time for this week's review of Radio 4's Sunday - a special edition from Glasgow.

What drew Edward Stourton to the city? It certainly doesn't appear to have been the lure of a million shops. (Well, it felt like a million to me after I was dragged round most of them recently). Nor was it the city's fascinating mix of old and new architecture (the splendour of Kelvingrove v that thing which looks like a hypodermic needle).

No, it was (a) the Liberal Democrat Conference (well, who could have resisted that?), (b) the installation of a new Catholic archbishop in Scotland to replace the disgraced Cardinal Keith O'Brien, and (c) it being almost one year to the day until the Scottish independence referendum. Being Sunday and Edward Stourton, there was a particularly strong emphasis on (b), Catholic matters.

7.10 Introduction

7.11 Liberal Democrat Conference. The Lib Dem Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, recently declared that "God must be a Liberal", so Edward Stourton interviewed him about that - and about Sarah Teather. [Edward himself, I suspect, believes Him to be a small-'l' liberal, in the U.S. sense of the word]. Mr Webb's basic theological point is that freedom to choose (which he thinks is what his party is really about) is important to human dignity, and that this extraordinary freedom lies at the heart of the gospels. He said that the Lib Dems have a reputation for being a secular party, but he's wants Christians to feel at home in his party. 

Edward brought up Mrs Thatcher's use of religion and said that 'the gospel of the poor' was something that backs Labour's position [what, still?]. As for Sarah Teather, she'd written a piece in Steve's book saying it wasn't Christian to be mean to immigrants and benefit scroungers [I paraphrase somewhat], noted Edward. Steve Webb said she was pretty much right about that.

7.15 The Pope's Astronomer. An interview with Brother Guy Consolmagno, papal astronomer, on the question of the relationship between the Vatican and science? 'Why does the pope have an astronomer?', asked Edwards Stourton. Brother Guy said that the official answer is to show that the Catholic Church supports science, but the 'real reason' is that "it's one of those things that makes us human". He himself joined the Peace Corp and went to Africa, where people wanted him to teach them astronomy. Their interest in astronomy was his inspiration. 

He explained that the post of papal astronomer arose in the 1500s to help reform the calender and to work out a simple formula that would help the Church get the date of Easter right. Edward raised Galileo (of course), and Brother Guy claimed that much of the story of the Church's ill-treatment of him is a 19th Century myth. [Really?]. Edward also said that the Church was anti-science in late 19th & early 20th centuries. Brother Guy said, no, it opposed things like eugenics but wasn't opposed to science in general. Does the "practical" Pope Francis [as opposed, presumably, to the intellectual Pope Benedict?] approve, Ed wondered. He "understands what we do", replied Brother Guy.

7.21 Deprivation in Scotland. This was a report by Edward Stourton himself on a Church of Scotland project to tackle poverty, in Scotland. As it says on the programme's website: "Passage from India is a charity who are working to combat poverty with support from the Church of Scotland. Edward meets the volunteers in Glasgow to discover how a journey to India inspired them." 

The results aren't perhaps what you might be expecting [from a BBC report.] One volunteer said that people in Scotland are "held captive within the benefits system", which results in despair. A couple of women involved in the project then described how it works. Its aim is to build up people's savings by raising funds through things like lunch clubs, ironing, sewing, etc. The target is to boost people's savings to £5000, then encourage them to invest in a business. The two women in question want to open a launderette. Sounds good, doesn't it?

7.26 Chancel repair liability. Returning to a subject discussed last week, Edward read out two e-mails. One described it as an "insidious church tax" and has launched a Facebook campaign against it. A second, a parish councillor, said they wouldn't pursue the matter, except in the case of wealthy landowners, from whom they ask for voluntary contributions.

7.28 A new Catholic leader for Scotland. As the blurb puts it, "Edward speaks to the new Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, Leo Cushley, who will replace the disgraced Cardinal Keith O'Brien, to find out what his vision is for the future of the Catholic Church in Scotland."

Edwards opening question to Mgr Cushley was, "You're returning to a Church in crisis". He denied that, saying just "one or two individuals" were to blame. Edward pressed him on this, and on the allegations of priestly abuse. He replied that it's the Vatican that is responsible for investigating senior Church leaders. His task is to find out personally what happened.

What about an apostolic visitation? "Many people" don't think that's enough, said Edward, and want an independent inquiry. Leo Cushley rejected both ideas as being an "exaggerated" response. Edward pressed him on it.

What about the return of Keith O'Brien to Scotland? After some pressing, he said he thought it was unlikely to return he'd return and that it would be wiser and more helpful if he were to stay away from Scotland.

On the independence referendum, he said the Church has nothing to say.

Edward speculated that a 'yes' vote could put at risk the tradition of faith schools. Mgr Cushley said the Church would fight hard to protect them.

What about bigotry in Scotland? He said he's disturbed by anti-Catholic bigotry but isn't sure how big a problem it is, having only just arrived back in the country.

And what of celibacy, about which Cardinal O'Brien had been mooting a change? Mgr Cushley replied that he's "happy with celibacy".

What about women in the Church? "A lot of people" are interested in that, says Edward. Ed pressed him over the issue of leadership roles for women, laughingly pointing out that they don't want just to arrange flowers. Mgr Cushley said, indeed not but there aren't going to be any women priests.

7.36 Catholic clerical abuse. Returning to last week's story about Fr Patrick Lawson, dismissed from his position in the Scottish Catholic Church for talking about his own abuse at the hands of a priest [and keeping on with the theme that interests Sunday more than most others], Edward talked to George Gardiner, a parishioner who is backing Fr Lawson and who protested against the move by walking out of a mass held by a stand-in priest. 

7.38 The State of the Catholic Church in Scotland. Gavin Walker reported. Beginning with the sexual scandal surrounding Keith O'Brien, we heard from the congregation of his former parish who are feeling "a mixture of excitement, trepidation and relief". We also heard from Stephen McGinty of The Scotman, who says that the continuing abuse stories are the main thing facing his replacement. Peter Kearney, a Catholic Church spokesman, said that the Church may not publish everything that it finds out about Keith O'Brien, as some of the information will have to remain private. 

What other problems face the Catholic Church? Edinburgh University's Prof. Tom Devine says its internal crisis is the biggest facing it since the Reformation and that the demoralisation caused by Mgr Cushley's predecessor was exacerbated by the fact that several other figures in the Church were also "actors in the process", leading the accusations against their former leader.

Prof. Devine pointed to a significant change in the Scottish Catholic Church's demographics. While it was predominantly poor, Irish  and working class back in the 1950s, by 2001 reached Scottish Catholics had reached "parity" with Protestants, becoming largely middle class. A Catholic Student Union said its membership has risen sharply recently. 

7.44 The Independence Referendum. In the wake of the vote, to be held on 18 September 2014, Edward Stourton talked to politics professor John Curtice, politics professor Tom Gallagher and Church of Scotland minister Sally Foster-Fulton about the state of religion in Scotland and the role that it may play in the run up to the referendum. [No open supporters of independence on that panel.]

Is Scotland a religious country?, wondered Edward.  Prof. Curtice said, "no". Even ten years ago 20% went to church, now that's just 12%-13%, and around 70% never attend a church service. So, it's become just as secular as England.

What about the Catholic Church's authority? Prof. Gallagher said it has "not enjoyed success" in persuading politicians for some time. Even before Keith O'Brien, the Church was already "marginalised politically".

Rev. Sally said the Church of Scotland supported the founding of the Scottish parliament but will stay impartial over independence, concentrating on consulting, encouraging and warning over such things as renewable energy, pay day loans, and welfare.

Prof. Curtice said that Catholics and those of no religion were slightly more pro-independence than Church of Scotland followers. That though was because Church of Scotland adherents tend to be much older and more wedded to their British identity. He didn't think religion would play a role in the independence debate.

What about sectarianism? Prof. Gallagher said it's a part of Scottish culture, that Scotland is "a distrustful, factional society". Prof. Curtice agreed, up to a point, saying that as far as day to day discourse goes, yes, it's still a problem for Catholics but as far as active discrimination over, say, jobs is concerned, no, it's no longer the problem it was. Rev. Sally agreed that sectarianism is deeply embedded in Scottish society, calling it a "symptom of a very unequal society".

"Is the BBC a friend or foe of Catholics?"

Here's an interesting discussion on the question 'Is the BBC a friend or foe of Catholics?', courtesy of the Catholic Herald. The debate, hosted by associate editor Madeleine Teehan, involved the magazine's deputy editor Ed West and Jack Valero of Catholic Voices.

For a flavour of where Is the BBC Biased? stands on this subject, please take a read through some of these past posts:

Take one 'Tablet' three times a day
Double Standards?
I Have Two Lists...(One is More Little Than the Other)
Triple Standards?
This coming 'Sunday'...
If you're In Search of the Real Pope Benedict, perhaps give Radio 4 a miss
Habemus papam Franciscum
Odds and Ends

[If you can't be bothered, we say it's a friend of liberal Catholics.]

Accidental impartiality?

An amusing turn of events on this morning's edition of Radio 4's Sunday came when Edward Stourton interviewed Michael Sean Winters over the plans of Cardinal Sean O'Malley, Archbishop of Boston, to boycott Boston College's commencement ceremony given that Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny is due to speak at the event and that Cardinal O'Malley believes Mr Kenny to be "aggressively promoting abortion policy". 

This is the type of feature on Sunday where a pronounced bias on the programme's part against social conservatism tends to emerge, so I was hardly surprised when Edward introduced Mr Winters as being a contributor to The Tablet (the liberal British Catholic magazine of which Edward himself is a trustee) and the National Catholic Reporter (the liberal American Catholic newspaper). Mr Winters's Wikipedia entry says:

He has often written from the perspective of progressive Christianity, opposing various conservative elements within the Catholic Church on topics such as the politics of abortion or the ordination of gay priests. 

A sense of impending bias in the programme's choice of interviewee was, I hope you will agree, hardly an unreasonable feeling to have at this point in the interview. 

I assumed, as a result, that the interview would then also take the familiar Sunday course of a Tablet in-house discussion, with Edward and Mr Winters chatting and Mr Winters providing the views that go hand-in-hand with the expectations loaded into Edward's questions, all leading to the inevitable conclusion that Cardinal O'Malley is wrong and Mr Kenny is right. From the way the interview started, I have a sense that Edward expected that too. 

Mr Winters, however, turned out not to hold the expected point of view at all. He's on Cardinal O'Malley's side here and sharply critical of Enda Kenny's position on abortion. Edward sounded rather taken aback by this turn of events - as was I. (Unlike Edward though, I started laughing).

Edward Stourton's question was a loaded one:

As I understand it, what the Irish government is trying to do is to tidy up the law in the light of the public sympathy for this young woman who recently died because she didn't have...or wasn't allowed an abortion. The cardinal has described that as "aggressively promoting abortion legislation". Do you think that's fair?

Unfortunately for Edward, Mr Winters didn't see what the Irish government is doing in the same way that he does, describing what Edward had just said as "simply factually wrong", saying that the lady died from medical malpractice and that the law Enda Kenny is proposing permits direct abortion, which is unacceptable for the Church. 

Edward stuck to his position though, insisting (with the use of such loaded terms "very modest" and "extreme"):

It's a very modest change, certainly it wouldn't introduce the sort of abortion legislation that we have in this country and many states in the United States. Describing it as "aggressively promoting abortion" seems a little bit extreme. 

Mr Winters insisted, in turn, that it's crossing the Rubicon where you can intend to take an innocent human life, and it's analogous to the idea of it being impossible to be "a little bit pregnant". He expressed his admiration for Cardinal O'Malley and the Irish bishops for saying "no". 

So, whatever the intentions behind to decision to invite a fellow Tablet liberal Catholic to talk about this issue, the result turned out to be far more impartial than might have been expected. Edward put the liberal perspective and the Irish government's position, while Michael Sean Winters put the traditional side of the argument and backed Cardinal O'Malley. Just as it should be.

Odds and Ends

Keeping an eye on religious matters, I've been trying to catch up with a few things and tying up a few loose ends...before moving onto other matters.

Firstly, I wanted to hear how BBC Radio 4 dealt with the election of Pope Francis, especially as the edition of The World Tonight which followed his election was hosted from Rome by blog favourite, Sunday's Edward Stourton.

Regular readers of this blog will probably know what the issue is here. Would liberal Catholic Tablet trustee Ed Stourton interview only fellow liberal Tablet Catholics and ignore, as his Sunday programme ignored for at least two years (until a post on this blog provoked a stream of complaints), its more conservative rival The Catholic Herald? 

No one listening to Ed's broadcast could say that the BBC is "anti-Catholic". Ed's report radiated the joy of the occasion. I'd say he seemed delighted. 

He interviewed Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor. Then he interviewed Edward Pentin, Vatican correspondent of The Catholic Herald. This pleased me. It was only a while back that I asked "How about Edward Pentin instead of Robert Mickens?"  and, lo and behold, here was Edward Pentin - someone I've never heard Ed Stourton interview before. Edward was pleasant towards Edward. The question is answered.

This is all good. 

A report by the BBC's Tom Esslemont raised the issue of Pope Francis and the Argentinian junta, but its Argentinian vox pop rejoiced in the elevation of Cardinal Bergoglio.  

Sister Jane Livesey and Chris Bain of Cafod followed. They sounded as hopeful as liberal Ed about the new pope. 

Ritula Shah took over as presenter at that point. She interviewed Catholic philosopher and Vatican advisor John Haldane and, yes, inevitably it had to happen, Abigail Frymann, online editor of The Tablet. I won't complain as it shows the BBC abiding by its commitment to impartiality. Someone from The Tablet appearing on the same programme as someone from The Catholic Herald is an excellent sign. A diversity of opinion is all I want. If I'm not mistaken, Abigail (critical, as ever, of Pope Benedict) seemed even happier than Prof Haldane about the election of Cardinal Bergoglio. 

The BBC's reporter in Argentina then presented the BBC's view from Argentina. She struck a balanced note. She didn't sound enthusiastic, but she wasn't negative-sounding either. Quite right.  

Ritula then interviewed Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the leader of Catholics in England. 

To complete this 'good news' part of the post, Ed then gathered together the BBC's veteran Rome correspondent and occasional Tablet contributor David Willey, Austen Ivereigh of Catholic Voices and seminarian Colin Mason. Revealingly, Ed (of the BBC) continued to sound very happy that the papal conclave hadn't produced someone in the conservative image of Benedict XVI. This is the main point of the evening where Ed's liberal bias really stood out. Being a "not-a-Catholic" it was very apparent that Ed was cheered by the "imaginative" nature of the move. However, his question to Austen Ivereigh showed his concern that the new pope wasn't on-message over such things as gay marriage (which Ed stated was a problem for "European Catholics").

Last Sunday's Sunday was equally upbeat in tone. Edward Stourton gave every impression of being a contented man (for the time being). There was a balanced report from Argentina by Bruce Douglas; John Laurenson visits Assisi, home town of St Francis; Edward discussed the rules of Ignatius Loyola with Fr. Michael Gallagher; the potential reshaping of the Curia was discussed with the ubiquitous Fr. Tom Reese and Dr Donna Orsuto of the Gregorian University; and the closing discussion was between Gerard O'Connell of Vatican insider and Tom Reese.

From hearing the unmistakable tone of Edward throughout both of these programmes and tying it in with the palpable sense of relief and satisfaction expressed by the liberal commentary team assembled by the BBC for their live coverage of the papal election (Robert Mickens, Tom Reese and Mgr. Roderick Strange), I can only say that - for the time being - the Tablet/"BBC Catholic" wing of the Church is on a bit of a high. Had the pope been someone much closer to the spirit of Benedict XVI I suspect the discussions on this edition of Sunday would have had a very different colour and tone. That's just a hunch though. It can't be proved.

The same edition of Sunday also marked the (then) coming enthronement of the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Kevin Bouquet presented a report on Justin Welby's Pilgrimage of Prayer. Trevor Barnes then interviewed the new archbishop.

The final piece of the jigsaw was put in place as regards the short series of Letters to Justin by Anglican figures. My test of the programme's commitment to impartiality was to see whether the three Anglicans chosen represented a fair spread of Church of England opinion. After the first Letter was from Canon Rosie Harper from the Church's liberal wing, the test was set:

Assuming the Sunday team are committed to the spirit of impartiality, next Sunday's speaker will be a social (and perhaps political) conservative from the other wing of the Church. The third and final speaker would then, presumably, be someone from the centre ground of Anglicanism. That would be the fair way to do it. 

If something like that happens then Sunday will have shown that it values BBC's guidelines on impartiality and we can all breathe a sigh of relief. 

Well, the second Letter was from Bishop Michael Nazir Ali from the Church's conservative wing and the final Letter was from Rt Revd Dr Solomon Tilewa Johnson, Archbishop of West Africa, from the centre ground of Anglicanism. The BBC, therefore, passed that test of impartiality with flying colours. There was no Giles Fraser after all (as I was sort-of predicting there would be)! So we can all breathe a sigh of relief!

As for Justin Welby's enthronement the BBC provided full, uninterrupted coverage live on the News Channel. In contrast to the election of Pope Francis, the BBC far exceeded Sky News here. Sky's coverage was a disaster, with their live broadcast breaking down embarrassingly on several occasions. The BBC was definitely the one to watch there.

Huw Edwards gathered together a three-person commentary team consisting of, ah yes!, Giles Fraser, Christina Rees and the retired Bishop of Manchester Nigel McCulloch. Giles and Christina are both from the Anglican Church's liberal wing, while the former Bishop of Manchester is from its centre ground. There was no one from its conservative wing. That mirrored the liberal Catholic panel gathered for the live coverage of the papal election.  There are clearly "BBC Anglicans" just as much as there are "BBC Catholics".

Moving onto matters secular, today's Dateline London bucked the trend I outlined in last week's post about the programme. (Do the makers of Dateline London read this blog?) Instead of the usual string of editions without a single right-winger, this week's panel was had not just one but two right-of-centre guests - namely the ever-charming Thomas Kielinger of Die Welt and Alex Deane of Conservative.Home. The other two guests, Mina Al Oraibi of Asharq Alawsat and Stephanie Baker of Bloomberg, are no left-wing ideologues either.

A balance of contrasting perspectives every week would be preferable though.

A balance of contrasting perspectives is something all these BBC programmes should be offering as a matter of course. Of course.

Habemus papam Franciscum

I decided to watch Sky News's coverage of the election of the new pope, Francis I (the former Cardinal Bergoglio of Buenos Aires). 

Hosted by Colin Brazier, the coverage featured commentary from Alastair Bruce - the channel's go-to man for big national and international events. Mgr. Mark Harold of the English College in Rome and Austen Ivereigh of Catholic Voices were their guests throughout, providing perspectives on what was unfolding before our eyes. Background and descriptive detail were given with no apparent axes to grind. The election was viewed as an historic event. 

Other reactions followed later. First came the Archbishop of Westminster, Dr. Vincent Nichols, followed by the historian Michael Walsh, two Croatian Catholics, a couple of British holidaymakers, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and the left-leaning economist Loretta Napoleoni.

I also recorded the BBC News Channel, watching back through the same period later in the evening, thus witnessing history being made twice! 

Jon Sopel presented for the BBC.  At his side was the BBC's religious affairs correspondent Robert Piggot. Their guests throughout were Robert Mickens of The Tablet and Fr Tom Reese, former editor of The Catholic. 

The emphasis was starkly different from that of Sky News. The BBC presented it as much more of a political event. 

Plus there were plenty of very apparent axes being ground by Mr. Mickens and Fr. Reese, who of whom share a strongly liberal outlook, which they projected forcefully throughout the BBC's coverage. Mr. Mickens is famous for weeping with distress at the announcement of Cardinal Ratzinger's election to the papacy as Benedict XVI. (He didn't sound at all distressed by Cardinal Bergoglio's election). Fr. Reese is well-known for being ejected from his editorship of The Catholic by the self-same Cardinal Ratzinger. Neither are fans of the Pope Emeritus then. 

It does seem to me to be highly revealing that the BBC chose two such prominent liberal Catholics to be their commentators for this historic event. Their shared perspective dominated the broadcast, especially as Fr. Reese was later replaced by another well-known liberal Catholic, Mgr. Roderick Strange. Like the others, he sounded relieved/pleased at the choice of Cardinal Bergoglio. 

Later reaction was gather from Chris Bain of the aid agency Cafod, a less-than-impressed sounding Argentinian BBC producer called Julian (who described Cardinal Bergoglio as "controversial" for his views on gay marriage and seemed to rather take Jon Sopel aback with his negative tone), two Ecuadorian girls in the crowd,  Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, some more Latin Americans from the crowd,  various other BBC reporters in Latin America, plus David Willey.  

I'm glad I watched Sky News first. I prefer to watch history being made without being overwhelmed by a particular, partial, politically-minded, one-sided point of view. I'm afraid that's what we got from the BBC. 

Praise be!

Sunday is continuing to improve in its handling of Catholic matters. Today's edition was another Catholic-centred programme, in anticipation of the coming papal conclave. 

As you will know if you've been reading this blog from the start, all the Catholic specials from 2011 and 2012 largely consisted of gatherings of Ed Stourton and his usual team from the liberal Catholic magazine The Tablet. Too many like-minded discussions resulted. This time, however, Samira Ahmed was the presenter and we were given a well-balanced panel consisting liberal Catholic Fr Thomas Reese, conservative Catholic Jack Valero and, from the mainstream of the Church, Sr Jane Livesey. A range of opinions resulted. Good!

The programme also featured David Willey reporting on the preparations in Rome and an extract from a new work of fiction by Sarah Dunant recreating the election of the Borgia pope. 

There was also, inevitably (and wholly reasonably) a report from Kevin Bouquet on the moral standing of the Catholic Church in Scotland in the wake of the scandals of the last couple of weeks. We heard from Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith of the Catholic Herald, Barbara Dorris of the abuse survivors' organisation SNAP, Catholic parishioners outside an Edinburgh cathedral and leading Catholic theologian Prof. John Haldane. Again, a decent cross-section of Catholic opinion. 

As you can see from that list, the long drought (i.e. complete absence) of any contributors from the Catholic Herald on the programme in 2011 and 2012 (in contrast to the large number of guests from its liberal rival The Tablet) is well and truly over. It was the overwhelming and unanswerable evidence of an imbalance (and the appearance of a conflict of interest) provided by this blog - as taken up by Damian Thompson and James MacMillan at the Telegraph and by other leading British Catholic bloggers - which sent the complaints pouring into Sunday. The BBC has clearly taken this on board and acted to remedy the situation - at least as far as Sunday is concerned. (You see, it can work!!) 

Moving onto the Church of England, last week's edition began a series of three Letters to Justin in anticipation of the moment when Justin Welby becomes the new Archbishop of Canterbury. I wrote about the series last week. It seemed a good test of the programme's commitment to impartiality to see whether it chose a representative range of Anglican opinion: 

This week's essayist was Sunday regular Canon Rosie Harper, a left-wing feminist from the liberal wing of the Church who used her talk to call for the Church of England to fully embrace her progressive values on social issues. Assuming the Sunday team are committed to the spirit of impartiality, next Sunday's speaker will be a social (and perhaps political) conservative from the other wing of the Church. The third and final speaker would then, presumably, be someone from the centre ground of Anglicanism. That would be the fair way to do it. 

If something like that happens then Sunday will have shown that it values BBC's guidelines on impartiality and we can all breathe a sigh of relief. 

If, however, they neglect to include a conservative Anglican speaker or if they feature a second firmly liberal Anglican who shares Canon Rosie's general outlook, they will have failed to meet the spirit of impartiality.  

Well, this week's talk was from Bishop Michael Nazir Ali - a leading Anglican from the Church's conservative wing. So, so far so good! 

All the programme now needs to do is to avoid giving next week's final Letter to Justin to someone like Giles Fraser (another voice from the Church's liberal wing) and that sigh of relief can well and truly be breathed!

We'll see.

This coming 'Sunday'...

I note that the the 'Top Stories' at the moment on The Catholic Herald's website are:

• Pope Benedict XVI to resign: full statement
• Pope Benedict XVI's resignation: reactions
• Here we go again. The Pope has used a stick in public, so speculation about his retirement has started up. But it’s quite simple: popes don’t retire
• Morning Catholic must-reads: 11/02/13
• Will the 'Hitler's pope' slur be put to rest?

The third item on that list, when you click into it, is a post by Dr William Oddie from March of last year making a prediction which in the light of today's news makes him look like a poor prophet. Ah yes, The Catholic Herald's enemies are obviously already gathering ammo for a hatchet job on one of the Herald's star conservative columnists.

Still, given the evidence presented in my post about the extraordinary dominance of commentators from The Tablet (The Catholic Herald's liberal rival) on BBC Radio 4's Sunday, as presented by Tablet trustee Ed Stourton, it would be expected - were this not the BBC - that the coverage of Pope Benedict's resignation on this week's Sunday would include at least someone from The Catholic Herald. 

Since my expose and the subsequent tranche of complaints made by conservative Catholics to the BBC in protest, Tabletistas have been absent from Sunday. Will this change this Sunday, given that they might feel that the fuss is dying down? Will the programme resist the urge to dial the usual suspects - Catherine Pepinster, Robert Mickens, Tina Beattie and John Wilkins, who usually appear en masse for such occasions, alongside their Tablet colleague Ed?

Wouldn't it be something if a programme which has featured dozens of guests from the left-leaning Tablet over the last couple of years but not a single guest from the right-leaning Catholic Herald decided at last to redress the balance? 

Instead of the four usual suspects from The Tablet (like the four who appeared on the last big Catholic-centred edition), how about Ed interviewing a few Catholic Heralders? How about Luke Coppen, editor of the Catholic Herald in place of Ms. Pepinster? How about Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith instead of Tina Beattie? How about Damian Thompson instead of John Wilkins? How about Edward Pentin instead of Robert Mickens?

How about it Sunday? What's stopping you?

You may not be a Catholic (and I'm certainly not a Catholic) but Sunday's total bias in favour of one liberal Catholic magazine at the expense of a conservative Catholic magazine remains indefensible - and important, if you want to argue that the BBC is not biased. In this case the BBC emphatically has been biased. 

Watch this space to see whether Sunday has learned its lesson or whether it's simply incapable of learning its lesson.