It is regrettable, having saddened many people (of his own Church and others) by his remarks on Anglican Communion, that Archbishop Desmond Connell should seek to transfer blame for the controversy to The Irish Times. In an interview published yesterday he said that while he was sorry for "the offence" he blamed it "very much on the way The Irish Times put its headline". The headline, of December 17th, said "Taking C of I Communion a sham, says archbishop". Dr Connell told his interviewer, Mebh Ruane, "that was very bad".
The headline and the accompanying report from page 9 of our editions of that date are reproduced today in page 4, enabling readers to judge for themselves whether the headline was an accurate and fair reflection of what Dr Connell said. Perhaps indeed from the Archbishop's point of view it may have been "very bad", for it took his remarks, delivered to a relatively small audience on Eamonn Dunphy's Radio Ireland programme, and brought them into the mainstream of public awareness. But it was not "very bad" in the way the headline was drafted. As an exercise in sub-editing, it was in fact, exemplary of that rather exacting craft. It reflected fairly and with a proper sense of priority that which was newsworthy in his remarks.
Dr Connell may not be the most adroit media performer. And he may feel that the media's need to compact and condense arguments does a disservice on occasion to the complex and nuanced issues with which he is concerned as a spiritual leader. But it might be pointed out that he has twice had the facility of these columns in recent days, without restriction as to length or presentation, in which to make his case. In the interim elsewhere he has sought to explain that he used the word "sham" not in a pejorative sense but in its dictionary definition. None of it has succeeded in undoing the hurt which he has caused, for all that it has elicited a degree of sympathy for himself as a Church leader who is prone to malapropism in public dialogue.
Headlines, by definition, are a precis of a following report. Had this one said "C of I Communion a sham, says archbishop", Dr Connell might have a legitimate complaint. But the headline was specific to his point. It said that the taking of Communion was a sham. Since these reports of recent days were in the context of President McAleese's taking Communion at Christ Church it is impossible to see how the headline could be faulted or misinterpreted. Moreover, the full context of the Archbishop's remarks was quoted in the report. Dr Connell is a man of considerable intellect and reputed humanity. It is therefore all the more surprising to see him fall back to the hardly-sustainable position of blaming the messenger. And one wonders whether he paused to consider the journalists whose work on the page in question he has called into question.
It has long been part of the editorial policy of this newspaper to afford considerable space and detailed coverage to the affairs of the principal Churches. That policy has applied and that service has been provided in this instance and will continue. But the journalists who are engaged in the task are entitled to their reputations. They should not have anyone's finger pointed at them when they have done their jobs with competence and professionalism.