Church disowns Gazette
Last Sunday, I interviewed Denis Bradley and the Revd Dr Lesley Carroll, two members of the Consultative Group on the Past, and both called for a serious public debate about whether provides a useful way forward for our society. The Gazette editorial for 17 June concluded that "both former CGP members came across on the programme rather as spolt children who have not got their way." Stephen Lynas, director of communications for the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, subsequently condemned this description as "demeaning", and Bishop Trevor Williams, chair of the Church of ireland's Central Communications Board, expressed his regret at the "unwelcome personal tone" of the editorial.
The Gazette's editor, rejects claims that the tone of the editorial was a personalised attack on either Mr Bradley or Dr Carroll. But the Archbishop of Armagh, the Most Revd Alan Harper (pictured), has now taken the highly unusal step of issuing a statement challenging what he describes as a "gratuitous ... personal slight". The Archbishop's statement is included in full below the fold.
Statement by Archbishop Alan Harper:
I wish to disassociate myself entirely from the sentiments expressed in the most recent Editorial of the Church of Ireland Gazette in respect of the Revd Dr Lesley Carroll and Mr Denis Bradley. The Gazette enjoys complete editorial freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility. The Gazette also claims the name of the Church of Ireland: therefore the Church has a right to expect that opinions offered under a Church of Ireland masthead shall be expressed responsibly and respectfully, especially when referring to named individuals. The personal slight on Dr Carroll and Mr Bradley was gratuitous. I regret that such discourtesy has become associated with the Church of Ireland and apologise to them for it. They are honourable and highly respected people with many friends throughout Ireland and indeed the Church of Ireland.
The report of the Consultative Group on the Past, which featured in the discussion on ±«Óãtv Radio Ulster's Sunday Sequence programme on Sunday 12 June, whether subsequently side-lined or rejected, was a brave and principled attempt by courageous people, including its co-chair, Lord Eames, to provide a foundation for the way in which society in Ireland might begin to address one of the most significant and difficult issues of our time: that of dealing with the painful legacy of the past. The report divided opinion and it has not been followed by substantive action, but personal attacks on members of the CGP team benefit no one.
Comment number 1.
At 19th Jun 2011, SelfishGene wrote:Couldn't give a toss!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 19th Jun 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:SelfishGene (@ 1) -
How interesting! If you really couldn't give a toss, then why comment at all??
How is calling a grown man "a spoilt child" not a personalised attack?
I agree that one can use strong analogies when appropriate, but the quote from the Gazette is a description of an impression the journalist had concerning the attitude of the two gentlemen in question. What has that got to do with the arguments, rather than personal factors?
Or is it a case of: "argument weak, therefore engage in ad hominem attacks"?
Of course, that kind of thing never occurs in other parts of this blog!!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 20th Jun 2011, mccamleyc wrote:I didn't hear the programme, but I wouldn't regard the description as overly personal if that was the impression given. He's asserting that the reason they were unhappy was not based on the substance alone but on the fact that their advice had been rejected - he's saying they took the rejection personally which may well be the case.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 20th Jun 2011, BluesBerry wrote:The Gazette editorial for 17 June concluded that: "both former CGP members came across on the programme rather as spoilt children who have not got their way."
For one thing, this is just an opinion; surely all persons have a right to their opinion. Secondly, is the statement true or not true, or somewhere in the middle? Herein lies what should have been the essence of the comeback comment. When something is extremely important to people, it's easy for one or both to behave rather childishly; it happens. Perhaps dealing with the PAINFUL legacy of the past made a fertile field for some personal attacks that could be somewhat wounding, but is this overreaction the way to promote healing? Are the contentions from either side moving the situation forward?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)