Adjudication No. 355 (February 1988) [1988] APC 2

ADJUDICATION No. 355 (February 1988)

Mr George Cook, on behalf of Catholics United for the Faith, complains of an article which appeared in the Courier-Mail on 14 July 1987, entitled "Archbishop may be removed over approval of theologian's writings". It reported that the Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane faced removal after refusing to withdraw his approval of writings of a Catholic theologian, despite the urging of Rome. It stated that the theologian, Father Bill O'Shea, had been under investigation by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for about eighteen months and that the 'arch conservative' group, Catholics United for the Faith (CUF), had called on the Sacred Congregation to discipline him. Although CUF was available for comment prior to publication, Mr Cook states that the organisation was not contacted before publication. He states further that the statements were not corrected, although a request was made to this effect the following day. On 16 July, a cartoon was published in the Courier-Mail showing a group of clergy questioning Father O'Shea in a medieval atmosphere under a banner, "CATHOLICS UNITED FOR THE FAITH: THE BRISBANE INQUISITION" in which the question is put to Father O'Shea, "You're accused of making Catholicism relevant to the twentieth century - how do you plead?"

Mr Cook states that the CUF had not called on the Sacred Congregation to discipline Father O'Shea - the Congregation does not in fact have the power to so discipline a Diocesan Priest. Nor had CUF called for the removal of Archbishop Rush. Mr Cook was interviewed by a reporter from the Courier Mail on 14 July, apparently independently of his request for a correction. In the interview he says he stressed the issue was whether Father O'Shea's book was in accordance with Catholic teaching. It was not about Father O'Shea personally. This aspect of the interview was not published but other aspects were, in particular, Mr Cook's refusal to say whether Rome had been contacted. On this, Mr Cook was reported as saying, "We do not publicly talk about this. We go through the channels in the Church."

The editor replies that Mr Cook was given the opportunity to say that CUF did not send Father O'Shea's material to Rome, but he did not take up this opportunity. At the hearing, Mr Cook agreed that the book had been submitted by CUF to Rome, but argued that this was a normal procedure merely to obtain advice from Rome as to whether it was suitable for use in the Church. He was at pains to stress the normality of this procedure and that it in no way was a request to the Sacred Congregation or the Roman authorities to seek to discipline the Priest.

It is understandable that Mr Cook would have reluctance in publicly airing the issue and that he preferred to be wholly within the confines of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. However, the question of Father O'Shea's writings had come into the public domain, at least with the report in the Courier-Mail of 14 July 1987. The Courier-Mail did not contact the Archbishop and Father O'Shea for comments on their initial article and on the following day, after publication, they did contact Catholics United for the Faith. At this stage, it would have been more appropriate for Mr Cook to have been less reticent in giving the full story to the newspapers to correct the impression gained from a reading of the article. It was on 16 July that the Courier-Mail published a statement on behalf of the Apostolic Nunciature denying that there was any danger of the Archbishop being removed. It is highly probable that the Courier-Mail would have equally published Mr Cook's version of the events.

While it would have been desirable for the Courier-Mail to have contacted Catholics United for the Faith prior to publication, it is impossible for the Press Council to determine whether any different reaction would have been available to them on 14 July than was available subsequently.

It now seems clear that Catholics United for the Faith had not sought that the Sacred Congregation discipline Father O'Shea, nor were they seeking the removal of the Archbishop. They had, however, sought a ruling on the appropriateness of Father O'Shea's book. However, with the information either available or possibly available to the Courier-Mail, it cannot be said to have behaved irresponsibly in its publication of 14 July. Its use of the description, "arch conservative", is a matter of opinion. In this regard, it should be pointed out that Mr Cook stresses that CUF supports the reforms to the Church instituted by the Second Vatican Council and that its leader had recently been honoured by the Pope.