Careless doctors, careless headline writers

Two eye-catching articles in the Independent today. One article, regarding the report into the death of Savita Halappanavar, asks “Could X case legislation have prevented this young woman dying?” The author hums and haws for 15 paragraphs before concluding: Probably not. The reason is that the main cause of her death was the fact that the gravity of her situation was not appreciated by the doctors treating her, not the state of Irish law. “In a situation where Savita slipped further into danger while doctors apparently never realised, how could legislation possibly have saved her?”

We then get a report on Cardinal Brady’s Ash Wednesday homily, under the headline: “Instead of ‘giving up’ for Lent, give something back, says cardinal.”

So far, so predictable. Back in my primary school days, I remember being told to "do something positive" for Lent rather than give something up, and I’ve heard the same thing many times since then. It’s amazing that there are still people giving things up for Lent at all, what will all these exhortations we’ve been hearing over the years to do something positive instead.

However, in this case, nothing the cardinal is quoted as saying actually suggests that he is asking people to do something positive instead of giving something up. What he appears to be saying is that they should do something positive as well as give stuff up.  Here are his words as quoted in the article:

“People often make resolutions at the beginning of Lent, very often these are decisions to give up something, alcohol, chocolate, even television. Whilst these are worthy sacrifices, they risk being too narrow.

“Lent is also a time for something positive. Why don’t we consider, for example, reading a piece of scripture, to pray more, perhaps join in parish life, commit ourselves to get to know more about the history of salvation, to resolve to think of others before we speak.

“Lent is the interplay of prayer and fasting and alms giving. They are not ends in themselves but means to an end. The goal is to draw closer to God.”

A couple of thoughts on this. First, it is quite clear from the words quoted that the cardinal did not actually suggest that Catholics “give something back” instead of giving something up, but rather that they should do both. He explicitly says that Lent is about fasting as well as prayer. Perhaps the editor had had the “do something positive instead of giving something up” mantra drummed into his head for so many years that he just assumed that this was what Cardinal Brady had meant.

Second: the cardinal’s words about abstaining being “too narrow” was, as the politicians say, unhelpful. The media were easily able to misrepresent his words as meaning that Christians should not abstain from things during Lent, when that was not in fact what he had said.

Third, I do not share His Eminence’s apparent confidence that fasting or abstaining during Lent is so widespread these days. I remember overhearing a conversation in a cantine a few years ago. A Canadian chef was telling someone that he had asked his Irish Catholic wife what the Church’s rules on Lenten fasting were. “She couldn’t give me a clear answer,” he said. Indeed. How many people who were subjected to post-Vatican II catechesis could?

As for my own Lenten observances: I’ve given up meat and alcohol. At least Monday through Saturday; we’ll see if I have the strength to abstain from them on Sundays too. As for the “something positive” part, that has yet to be decided.