Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Roman Catholic priests accuse C4 of pro-Muslim bias

It is difficult in these latter days of religious turf wars to discern who is leading whom, who is following whom, and why anyone should be concerned about either. It may be that it is simply a case of the blind leading the blind, or the deaf shouting at the deafer, while the rest of the country wishes the God in whom they do not believe would strike all the offenders dumb.

Since it is not remotely in Cranmer’s nature to manifest any religious bias, he is pleased to bring you news that, following the Sikh and Hindu accusation of a BBC which is biased towards Islam, Roman Catholic priests have accused Channel 4 of that very sin/vice/crime, and also of ‘not showing enough respect to Christianity’.

Their assertion is that the channel recently showed ‘a whole season of broadly positive programmes on Islam while a "Da Vinci Code-style" documentary on Christianity cast doubt on the validity of the Pope’.

Cranmer breathes deeply.

The priests accuse C4 of treating the history and beliefs of Islam ‘more reverently’ on its website than it does Christianity.

Cranmer has checked out this complaint, and he has not the foggiest idea what these priests are talking about. Whilst the BBC website is undoubtedly more comprehensive and nuanced, that of C4 certainly displays awareness of the differences between (and the origins of) the major denominations of the major religions, and there is no discernible bias in its presentation at all.

But Fr Ray Blake of Brighton detects ‘a rather supine attitude to Islam and a trivialising attitude to Catholicism’. He asserts: ‘Channel 4 has shown quite serious discussions about Islam but nothing that treats Christianity in the same way.’

Cranmer wonders if Fr Ray saw Undercover Mosque, or Undercover Mosque – The Return.

While there may be a bias in output quantity, this is quite simply because of the present obsession with finding a Muslim terrorist under every cornflake. If Sikhs and Hindus are relatively uninteresting, Fr Ray must understand that Rome only becomes interesting to the broadcast media when she is putting on a good show, or shaming the Church of England.

His concern continues with such issues as the claim that St Peter died in ‘Palestine’ - not in Rome as the church has always taught. But Cranmer thinks this to be a valid archaeological and historical enquiry, and Fr Ray should have nothing to fear from it. Indeed, he ought to be pleased that C4 is giving airtime to such issues, and volunteer himself as an advocate for his cause. Scripture does after all state that it was Paul, not Peter, who was the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11:13).

Yet he further complains that ‘academics quoted in the documentary say this means that he was not the first Pope and so other pontiffs have not been his true successors, with the Vatican accused of "fabricating" a connection with the apostle to justify its power’.

Fr Ray might as well berate all Protestants and a hefty proportion of the Church of England, for such assertions have scriptural, historical and theological validity, and it is quite bizarre to raise such concerns in a complaint of pro-Islam bias. Questioning Roman Catholicism is not the same as questioning Christianity any more than impugning the Church of England denigrates the name of the Lord. If C4 is showing ‘disdain for the Catholic Church’, it is certainly balancing this with a very real enquiry into what actually goes on in British mosques.

According to these priests, the anti-Christian and pro-Islamic conspiracy is explained by virtue of the fact that C4’s commissioning editor for religious broadcasting is one Aaqil Ahmed, a Muslim. The belief is that he has cleverly circumvented the rigorous filtering process designed to weed out all religious bigots and ensure the placement of an ultra-liberal. But he is really a Muslim fundamentalist intent on undermining Western Christendom and establishing a worldwide caliphate, and he is beginning his quest in the studios of C4.

There may indeed be a reluctance by much of the Western media to criticise Islam, and this is doubtless born out of fear of Islamist militancy. But Cranmer finds C4 to be on the right side of the battle for freedom of expression. And, moreover, it is more likely that a Muslim in such an influential position at C4 will be far more critical of his own faith than he is of others, and Muslims are more likely to heed the output of C4 by virtue of Mr Ahmed’s presence.

If there is to be any Islamic ‘reformation’, it will emanate within Islam and be led by Muslims. And Cranmer can think of none better than those more liberal types presently working in the Guardian-dominated world of the media.


Blogger Shadow said...

"It is difficult in these latter days of religious turf wars to discern who is leading whom, who is following whom, and why anyone should be concerned about either."

Your Grace, sightly 'off topic', but I am more than a little concerned about this insidous introduction of Sharia Law! what is happening with our Judiciary?


16 September 2008 at 09:52  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

I agree with you, your Grace. Methinks us RCs are protesting a bit too much on this occasion.

Anyway, it's a battle we are not going to win.

I'm more concerned about the clever film directors who feel that they need to change the denouement of novels like Brideshead revisited because they are too Catholic.

Where will this end? Perhaps some clever director deciding that Our Lord dying on the cross is not appropriate to modern times (it might upset the kiddies or OAPs) and that an 'improved' version of the Gospel story would be for Him to given counselling and an ASBO.

16 September 2008 at 10:02  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

The catholics ought to start a campaign of catholic terrorism.

Oh. The irony.

16 September 2008 at 11:44  
Blogger Dave said...

The Catholics are in no position to protest. Peter De Rosa's excellent but long out of print book "The Vicars of Christ" reveals just how much of catholic orthodoxy is based on lies. Unbroken apostolic succession? Do me a favour! When there were three popes at the same time in the 12th century? All ordaining priests, all excommunicating each other, and all claiming infallibility.
Methinks the Catholics protest too much. Who was it said "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear"?
Both Islam and Catholicism need reforming.
Both live in fear of "The Emperor's new clothes" syndrome.
Both use infallibility as a weapon of control and intimidation.

16 September 2008 at 13:11  
Blogger Christian said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 September 2008 at 13:20  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Christian,

Can you read?

Please refrain from hurling spurious accusations in His Grace's direction before considering the plainest meaning of the text before you.

16 September 2008 at 13:27  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Three Popes in the 12th Century? Who were they exactly Dave?

Methinks your guru Peter de Rosa has got his dates wrong. Not a very good history book is it? No wonder it's out of print

16 September 2008 at 15:23  
Anonymous the recusant said...


You would think these armchair critics had discovered the Holy Grail the way they excitedly announce from the roof tops some peccadillo in the Churches history, ‘Gosh is that true, well it blows my faith right out the window! Oh what a misled fool I’ve been’. It really is rather rich when they site sources and then not only get the time wrong but also the essential details.

Dave there were actually 4 anti-popes and it was over the 14 and 15 century when they made their claims, and believe me you have nothing, and I mean nothing to offer, in the way of scandals, corruptions, murder et al that we Roman Catholics are not fully conversant with. If you insist on posting the sins of the saints then at least spend a little time in research first, it will save embarrassment later.

The Internet, where every opinion can be heard, no matter how ill informed.

16 September 2008 at 16:24  
Blogger McKenzie said...

the recusant: an ever source of fresh air and inspiration.

Your Grace, 'Islamic reformation', two words which chase around my head like a snake and a mongoose.

16 September 2008 at 18:04  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...


Quite so!

And there's a group of sedevacantists today who have appointed their own pope somewhere in the US, who calls himself Pius XIII. But I don't know what you have to do to become a fully fledged, copper bottomed antipope.

As you know, Eamon Duffy's book 'Saints and Sinners' sets out the highs and the lows of all the Popes and pulls no punches.

Actually I am rather fond of the more scandalous ones - Alexander VI for example...

16 September 2008 at 19:31  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

Are you aware that we are now a Sharia state Cranmer?

Ominous evil, like a stalking shark in deep blue water

Check out the comments, as always you can find retards who say the real problem is Islamophobia.

One final thing, the prophet of our times, is Jim Jones. Jim Jones was the original multiculturalist heading up his "Rainbow Family". He enjoined his followers to commit mass suicide in protest against the world never reaching Communism.

16 September 2008 at 20:09  
Anonymous D. McConnell said...

Does the Roman spokesman also object to the biblical passages where James and Paul confront and instruct Peter?

I know they have elaborate explanations for Biblical mentions of "the brothers of Jesus" to secure some of their doctrines.

Do television specials ever discuss the view of justification by faith through grace in the biblical book of Romans and the dissonance of that doctrine from the Romanist sacramental view? I suppose not. But would there be a similar objection if they did?

Does television ever show the movie “Luther”? I suppose that would produce a veritable explosion.

16 September 2008 at 22:47  
Blogger McKenzie said...

Interesting blog you have going on there Donald. I have decided to follow it. Can I still be saved, and is the promise of salvation through Jesus still valid if I have no idea what 'altruistic transcultural objective morality' is all about?

17 September 2008 at 00:23  
Anonymous d mcconnell said...

Yes McKenzie. Thanks. I hope I can post more often this fall.

About morality - its all in the Bible, Augustine, and Richard Hooker. Nothing too new.

17 September 2008 at 03:35  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

D. McConnell

"Does the Roman spokesman also object to the biblical passages where James and Paul confront and instruct Peter?"

No, not at all, but read the passage again and tell us all who it was that made the final decision, once they had argued the pros and cons, once the discussions were at an end in that first council of Jerusalem, to whom did they look to make the final decision and whose decision was accepted as binding on the church?

"I know they have elaborate explanations for Biblical mentions of "the brothers of Jesus" to secure some of their doctrines."

Its not elaborate, I'll make this easy as its quite straight forward, all monks are brothers, all nuns are sisters, in black parlance its the same, does that mean they are all related, Bro?

"...discuss the view of justification by faith ...etc" There would be no objection to it being aired and discussed but it would be challenged in the intelligent and errudite way his Gace expects on his Blog, any problems with that?

“Luther”? ... a veritable explosion! Could you take the flak without resorting to steriotypes. Luther highlighted some valid problems within the Church, some of his objections were well founded some not,I belive those objections have now been resolved, what reason do you have for remaining outside?

17 September 2008 at 09:50  
Blogger McKenzie said...

An important work was Hooker's sermon of 1585, A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and how the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown. In this he defended his belief in the doctrine of Justification by faith, but argued that even those who did not understand or accept this could be saved by God. This therefore included Roman Catholics, and emphasised Hooker's belief that Christians should concentrate more on what united them, rather than on what divided them. Sermons much like this one provoked a reaction that led to his greatest work. It seems Walter Travers publicly attacked Hooker's extension of salvation to Roman Catholics and Hooker's dislike of Calvinism. Hooker responded with his masterpiece, Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie.

Pasted from Wikipedia.

Way too heavy for me! The Bible I can handle (with guidance). St Augustine, I like reading but do not pretend to be anything other than an ordinary geezer who finds pleasure there in.
Like I have said before, I am supposed to be CofE, but I could not argue about the legitimacy of the Anglican Church considering the awful mess it seems to be in. God, I know is at work in all things, and He may have a desire for people to become lawyers, whom in turn could establish Christian Jurisprudence on earth, but in my heart I feel he still favours the old policy of 'Free Moral Agency' Like it has been said, "it's all in the Bible".

17 September 2008 at 18:01  
Blogger DP111 said...

Cranmer posted: If there is to be any Islamic ‘reformation’, it will emanate within Islam.

If by "reformation", one is thinking along Western lines, sadly, there is no chance of that happenning.

18 September 2008 at 01:53  
Anonymous len said...

Islam which means submission is not submission to an idea, a philosophy, or even a people even it is submission to a SPIRIT!
This spirit ensnares, entangles, entraps people.
The same spirit works through religion so there is no room for complacency!
The true God has made himself known to all who receive him.

18 September 2008 at 07:26  
Anonymous len said...

This creator God ,why did he create people?, to make himself slaves?.If so he is a tyrant.
If this creator God created people to love and to have a relationship with him he must be an incredible source of love and tolerance!

18 September 2008 at 08:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is a very real prospect. The Europeans are terrified of the wave of Islam to come in the 21st century. Unless you stand your ground and develop a good, solid moral foundation, Islam will fill that gap. History has proven that once that gap is filled, fundamentalism will creep in and the newly created Eurabian society will catastrophically implode after a few hundred years resulting in the bondage of the masses. Islam, though it contain some truth, is devoid of much that is good -- a step backward for civilization. In countries like England, France, Spain, etc., pandering to Islam needs to stop at once. The Christians need not worry as the Church is one institution that survives the onslaught of time. The unbaptized masses will see the end of their lines -- already they are scant of progeny. The great history of European civilization is destined for the dustbin. This will be your end my dear cousins in Europe. You have brought the scourge upon yourselves. Assimilation is not discrimination. Should muslims refuse to assimilate it is they who are the racists and bigots.

26 February 2009 at 21:38  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older