Article out of line for Catholic readers
Dan O'Hara is the Knights of Columbus State Deputy
The recent opinion piece by Will Johnson in the March 26 edition of Martlet prompts a response — not so much because of the writer’s disagreement with, or even condemnation of the remarks he attributes to the His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, but more because of the manner in which he chose to air his disagreement. The caricature alone was obviously meant to inflame and offend. If that was his objective, then mission accomplished. Certainly, the Catholic students who attend UVic are delighted at the fact that their Student Union fees were used in such a manner, in order to insult them and belittle their spiritual leader.
I don’t know if Mr. Johnson is old (although I assume not), feeble, crazy-looking or stupid — all terms used in his article to disparage the Pope — but, to a first-time reader, it would appear that he is simultaneously at his best and worst when he loses his objectivity and reason and descends to the level of a playground bully with his vile, scurrilous and puerile attack on the spiritual leader of the world’s 1.3 billion Catholics.
A fair, factual and duly researched article by Johnson might have earned him some kudos for effort, but not for this infantile, name-calling collection of anecdotal drivel which, apparently with little effort, he culled from other sources and presented out of context in a mélange of invective.
I don’t disagree with Mr. Johnson’s right to share his opinions. However, writing as he does (from the safe halls of academia) I would have thought he could have presented both himself and his argument/critique in a more mature, thoughtful, respectful and factual manner. In fact, a little research would have unearthed statistics which show that countries with a large Catholic percentage population show significantly lower HIV/AIDS infections than countries with mostly non-Catholic populations. Further research would have shown, as Michael Coren was able to report in the National Post on March 31, that although Africans have been plagued with AIDS for almost two generations, it wasn’t until the disease was brought into the male homosexual community in the U.S. that actors and politicians made AIDS a cause célèbre. In those times, it was the Catholic Church that was in Africa caring for people with AIDS. Even today, almost half of all Africans with AIDS are nursed by people working for the Catholic Church. World-wide, 27 per cent of HIV/AIDS prevention and care around the globe is provided by Catholic organizations and institutions. Many have no understanding of the Holy Father’s role in the Church as teacher and spiritual father in the area of faith and morals. But the Catholic Church is neither a democracy nor a cafeteria where one may pick and choose from a menu of tenets.
When the world offers the pill, abortion and condoms as a solution to all of its problems and pays homage to the culture of death, the Pope says there is another way, a better way — the Culture of Life. A culture in which each human is treated with respect (from conception to natural death). A culture in which loving relationships are monogamous and adults take responsibility for their actions. A culture in which the shepherd leads his flock along the right road — not necessarily the well-travelled one.
If Mr. Johnson thinks that condoms are the be-all and end-all, perhaps he could convince the UVic rabbits to wear them. Imagine — no possibility of an outbreak of myxomatosis and no more little bunnies.
Editors note: due to the nature of the comments generated by the March 26 article, “Pope Benedict XVI is a jackass” has been removed from martlet.ca.


28 Comments
The Martlet has an open comments policy and will endeavour to promote healthy discussion. We strive to act as an agent of constructive social change and will remove racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive comments.
Leave a Comment
T May 15, 2009, 9:27 a.m.
WOOHOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! Go dad!!!!!!!!!
T May 15, 2009, 9:27 a.m.
WOOHOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! Go dad!!!!!!!!!
Brittany May 15, 2009, 10:39 p.m.
Mr. State Deputy:
Can you please post links to the resources you used to get your 4th paragraph's statistics on the fight against AIDS in Africa and the factual contributions of the Catholic church?
Thank you kindly
-UVIC student
Brittany May 15, 2009, 10:39 p.m.
Mr. State Deputy:
Can you please post links to the resources you used to get your 4th paragraph's statistics on the fight against AIDS in Africa and the factual contributions of the Catholic church?
Thank you kindly
-UVIC student
Nick May 16, 2009, 2:53 a.m.
In my view, the hostile spirit of Will Johnson's article was justified. Not well-researched and not nice. However, there are some views Mr. Ratzinger holds that do merit criticism and moral condemnation, not tolerance and being nice. One prime example is his set of believes about gender--how people should obey the gender norms that exist, and sexuality, how homosexuality is
a tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil.These authoritarian, backwards-thinking views--which vindicate the oppressors of LGBT people--have no place in an ethical society. I fear that being nice will not bring enough attention to these views.But I agree that a good article condemning Mr. Ratzinger should be better researched.
Nick May 16, 2009, 2:53 a.m.
In my view, the hostile spirit of Will Johnson's article was justified. Not well-researched and not nice. However, there are some views Mr. Ratzinger holds that do merit criticism and moral condemnation, not tolerance and being nice. One prime example is his set of believes about gender--how people should obey the gender norms that exist, and sexuality, how homosexuality is
a tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil.These authoritarian, backwards-thinking views--which vindicate the oppressors of LGBT people--have no place in an ethical society. I fear that being nice will not bring enough attention to these views.But I agree that a good article condemning Mr. Ratzinger should be better researched.
Patrick May 18, 2009, 1:01 p.m.
Apparently the inflammatory nature of Will Johnson's article has now been overshadowed by righteous anger couched in unreferenced feelgoodery. But which side of the argument has been removed?
The act of removing Will Johnson's article from the Martlet website is worthy of condemnation. Regardless of publisher's remorse, abandoning a writer in the face of international pressure only increases the exposure of such cowardice.
Patrick May 18, 2009, 1:01 p.m.
Apparently the inflammatory nature of Will Johnson's article has now been overshadowed by righteous anger couched in unreferenced feelgoodery. But which side of the argument has been removed?
The act of removing Will Johnson's article from the Martlet website is worthy of condemnation. Regardless of publisher's remorse, abandoning a writer in the face of international pressure only increases the exposure of such cowardice.
Dan May 19, 2009, 4:09 p.m.
To Brittany,
You requested statistics. I refer you to this website where you will find a number of links that will provide you with what you may be looking for: http://socialjusticesa.blogspot.com/2009/03/harvard-university-russian-patriach-and.html
And another: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4081276.stm
I hope this is helpful
Dan May 19, 2009, 4:09 p.m.
To Brittany,
You requested statistics. I refer you to this website where you will find a number of links that will provide you with what you may be looking for: http://socialjusticesa.blogspot.com/2009/03/harvard-university-russian-patriach-and.html
And another: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4081276.stm
I hope this is helpful
Bryce May 25, 2009, 8:43 p.m.
I haven't actually read Johnson's article - is it online anywhere?
Bryce May 25, 2009, 8:43 p.m.
I haven't actually read Johnson's article - is it online anywhere?
Kailey May 30, 2009, 1:33 p.m.
If you remove the article from the website, how are people supposed to make up their own minds while reading opeds and letters about it?
Once you start the discussion, you need to let it happen. Taking Will's piece away doesn't make much sense once you've already put it out there, and keep publishing articles about it. Now no one can know if Dan O'Hara's points are valid, or if they agree or disagree with his statements.
Kailey May 30, 2009, 1:33 p.m.
If you remove the article from the website, how are people supposed to make up their own minds while reading opeds and letters about it?
Once you start the discussion, you need to let it happen. Taking Will's piece away doesn't make much sense once you've already put it out there, and keep publishing articles about it. Now no one can know if Dan O'Hara's points are valid, or if they agree or disagree with his statements.
Latisha June 4, 2009, 3:59 a.m.
@Kailey,
What are you, 3?
The article was titled Pope Benedict is a Jackass. Are you one of those kids who needed test dates written on the board in lecture?
It's in the syllabus.I know, but could you just write it down again?How hard is it to figure out what it was about?
Clearly, just from the title you can infer that it will be 1) amateur/sensationalist 2) a banal diatribe against religion 3) shoddy yellow journalism
Anyway, if you take the Martlet as your bread and butter Bible, I can only assume you're another moronic liberal arts student. Read a book, Jamal.
Latisha June 4, 2009, 3:59 a.m.
@Kailey,
What are you, 3?
The article was titled Pope Benedict is a Jackass. Are you one of those kids who needed test dates written on the board in lecture?
It's in the syllabus.I know, but could you just write it down again?How hard is it to figure out what it was about?
Clearly, just from the title you can infer that it will be 1) amateur/sensationalist 2) a banal diatribe against religion 3) shoddy yellow journalism
Anyway, if you take the Martlet as your bread and butter Bible, I can only assume you're another moronic liberal arts student. Read a book, Jamal.
Jess June 7, 2009, 5:19 p.m.
@ Latisha,
A
moronic liberal arts studentwill know that the writer himself does not come up with the headline to his own article. With the charge ofshoddy journalismI can agree, but to deride a person for wanting to hear all sides of the story and for admonishing the Martlet's penchant for creating a scandal then backing away from it is unreasonable.Jess June 7, 2009, 5:19 p.m.
@ Latisha,
A
moronic liberal arts studentwill know that the writer himself does not come up with the headline to his own article. With the charge ofshoddy journalismI can agree, but to deride a person for wanting to hear all sides of the story and for admonishing the Martlet's penchant for creating a scandal then backing away from it is unreasonable.Kailey June 9, 2009, 2:17 a.m.
Whatever people choose to infer or not infer from the headline is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is once something is published and a discussion is continuing, all sides of that discussion should be available.
I actually know what it's about and have a copy of it. That's not the point. The point is that people like you will make assumptions because they have no other options, lacking the actual article to read.
As a
moronic liberal arts studentI beleive that people have the right to read what's being discussed. And PS since we're at UVic I'm actually a moronic humanities student.And no, Latisha, you can't infer all that from the title. While Will Johnson is known for generating a lot of ahem discussion, that doesn't mean it's any of the three things you listed. And, if you didn't notice from the section it's in (do I need to spell it out for you again? O-P-I-N-I-O-N) it's not passing itself off as anything other than one man's opinion.
How I feel about the article and its headline isn't what's important here.
Kailey June 9, 2009, 2:17 a.m.
Whatever people choose to infer or not infer from the headline is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is once something is published and a discussion is continuing, all sides of that discussion should be available.
I actually know what it's about and have a copy of it. That's not the point. The point is that people like you will make assumptions because they have no other options, lacking the actual article to read.
As a
moronic liberal arts studentI beleive that people have the right to read what's being discussed. And PS since we're at UVic I'm actually a moronic humanities student.And no, Latisha, you can't infer all that from the title. While Will Johnson is known for generating a lot of ahem discussion, that doesn't mean it's any of the three things you listed. And, if you didn't notice from the section it's in (do I need to spell it out for you again? O-P-I-N-I-O-N) it's not passing itself off as anything other than one man's opinion.
How I feel about the article and its headline isn't what's important here.
Paul D June 10, 2009, 3:47 p.m.
Anybody else find it ironic that in Latisha's attempt to explain why an article featuring petty insults was removed from the website, she incited the very same pettyness?
I for one can't wait to see what happens next! Reaches for popcorn
Paul D June 10, 2009, 3:47 p.m.
Anybody else find it ironic that in Latisha's attempt to explain why an article featuring petty insults was removed from the website, she incited the very same pettyness?
I for one can't wait to see what happens next! Reaches for popcorn
Pablo Hudson July 1, 2009, 6:59 p.m.
the Catholic Church is neither a democracy nor a cafeteriaThe first part of that statement is so, so true. The second part, lamentably, is also true. Perhaps if the church were a cafeteria it would bolster declining attendance.
It seems the Catholics have done what they historically done before: silence those that disagree. I thought we had moved a bit beyond the Inquisition and that free speech was permissible in Canada. Evidently not.
Pablo Hudson July 1, 2009, 6:59 p.m.
the Catholic Church is neither a democracy nor a cafeteriaThe first part of that statement is so, so true. The second part, lamentably, is also true. Perhaps if the church were a cafeteria it would bolster declining attendance.
It seems the Catholics have done what they historically done before: silence those that disagree. I thought we had moved a bit beyond the Inquisition and that free speech was permissible in Canada. Evidently not.
Jack Strong July 17, 2009, 10:06 a.m.
Good to see the martlet showing their true stripes as leftist censors.
Jack Strong July 17, 2009, 10:06 a.m.
Good to see the martlet showing their true stripes as leftist censors.
Sirach March 21, 2010, 10:24 p.m.
There is a difference between free speech and slander. Free speech allows for free expression of ideas and opinions whether or not they conform to the popular idea and opinion. An article with a title along the lines of,
Pope Benedict XVI's attempts to reduce HIV/AIDS in Africa are counter productiveorA better way than Pope Benedict XVI'sare examples of free speech.The Pope is a jackass., while may be an attempt to express one's opinion on the pope, has an air of slander. Too often people misunderstandfree speechto meansay what I want when I want, including excessive use of foul language or insult. Just as you should be able to walk down the street knowing that you will not be arrested or shot for saying,I think the government is wrong,so too should you be able to walk down the street without someone calling you ajackass. Also, a very important thing to remember is that the Pope speaks for the Church, not for his self. When he talks about tenets, dogma and doctrine, he is discussing that which the faith of the Church holds true and cannot be changed.When it is said that homosexual activity is
a tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil,is not to say homosexual people are intrinsically morally evil, but that engaging in the homosexual act whereby two people of the same gender engage in sexual activity is wherein lies the moral evil - the act, not the individuals, as the Church holds true that no single individual can be intrinsically evil, because all are created by God, and God does not create evil.It seems we have moved away from the topic of free speech, but if you look closely enough, those who are yelling
free speech!in defense of Will Johnson's article and caricature, seem to fail to realize how it tries to trample on Pope Benedict XVI's freedom to express his opinions and those of the Holy Church. Therein lies the slander. When you do not agree with someone's opinion and respond by insult, it shows you have no opinion of your own to offer. It is equivalent to saying,What he said is wrong, because he said it.These authoritarian, backwards-thinking views have no place in an ethical societyto which I respondSociety's backwards-thinking views have no authority on ethics.Because you disagree with the opinion presented it becomes,backward-thinking. Our society's attempt to return to the good ol' days of Sodom and Gomorrah where everything that felt good was acceptable because it felt good is true backwards-thinking. This so-calledethical societywhich holds self-gratification above all else is backwards-thinking, because that is exactly how things once were. Sodom and Gomorrah fell. Whether you take that to be by the hand of God or not, it happened. That societal archetype failed with disastrous results. If society continues along this path, it will return to that way and fall apart. We need more forward-thinking leaders like Pope Benedict XVI, if our society and indeed our species is to survive.Peace and all good, Sirach
Sirach March 21, 2010, 10:24 p.m.
There is a difference between free speech and slander. Free speech allows for free expression of ideas and opinions whether or not they conform to the popular idea and opinion. An article with a title along the lines of,
Pope Benedict XVI's attempts to reduce HIV/AIDS in Africa are counter productiveorA better way than Pope Benedict XVI'sare examples of free speech.The Pope is a jackass., while may be an attempt to express one's opinion on the pope, has an air of slander. Too often people misunderstandfree speechto meansay what I want when I want, including excessive use of foul language or insult. Just as you should be able to walk down the street knowing that you will not be arrested or shot for saying,I think the government is wrong,so too should you be able to walk down the street without someone calling you ajackass. Also, a very important thing to remember is that the Pope speaks for the Church, not for his self. When he talks about tenets, dogma and doctrine, he is discussing that which the faith of the Church holds true and cannot be changed.When it is said that homosexual activity is
a tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil,is not to say homosexual people are intrinsically morally evil, but that engaging in the homosexual act whereby two people of the same gender engage in sexual activity is wherein lies the moral evil - the act, not the individuals, as the Church holds true that no single individual can be intrinsically evil, because all are created by God, and God does not create evil.It seems we have moved away from the topic of free speech, but if you look closely enough, those who are yelling
free speech!in defense of Will Johnson's article and caricature, seem to fail to realize how it tries to trample on Pope Benedict XVI's freedom to express his opinions and those of the Holy Church. Therein lies the slander. When you do not agree with someone's opinion and respond by insult, it shows you have no opinion of your own to offer. It is equivalent to saying,What he said is wrong, because he said it.These authoritarian, backwards-thinking views have no place in an ethical societyto which I respondSociety's backwards-thinking views have no authority on ethics.Because you disagree with the opinion presented it becomes,backward-thinking. Our society's attempt to return to the good ol' days of Sodom and Gomorrah where everything that felt good was acceptable because it felt good is true backwards-thinking. This so-calledethical societywhich holds self-gratification above all else is backwards-thinking, because that is exactly how things once were. Sodom and Gomorrah fell. Whether you take that to be by the hand of God or not, it happened. That societal archetype failed with disastrous results. If society continues along this path, it will return to that way and fall apart. We need more forward-thinking leaders like Pope Benedict XVI, if our society and indeed our species is to survive.Peace and all good, Sirach