Give judgment for me, O God

16 May 2004

Neil Mitchell uses the multi-million-dollar resources of radio station 3AW as a personal channel for his anti-religious bigotry

Top-rating radio star Neil Mitchell seems determined to demonstrate he is the Australian media's most demented anti-Catholic bigot. His listeners, especially his fellow bigots, would know that he devotes slabs of costly radio talk-time to his unrelenting campaign against Catholics and the Catholic Church. I have travelled frequently interstate over the years and, except in the case of Phillip Adams (and that's another story), I have rarely come across anything in the media to match Mitchell's bigoted rants. A good example among many was his appearance on Channel Seven's 'Sunrise', 29 August 2003. He exclaimed during a 'discussion' with some media colleagues:

Hang on! Did you use morality and the Church together?'

This was in reply to one of his colleagues who said that it was left to the [Christian] churches to show the way in morality. Nobody else could be depended upon.

Later when the subject of culture and rugby came up he quipped uproariously:

'You're talking about morality and the Church, you're talking about culture and rugby...none of them sit together!'

In one sneering sentence he has pronounced a blanket condemnation of the Church and all its members.

As I wrote in my comment that day, if anyone wanted an example to hold out to young people of crass, crude, unthinking, uncomplicated bigotry, then this would be it. Having risen to a position of power, Mitchell, like all bigots, could not be bothered mounting a coherent and compelling case to defend his views. Untouched and untouchable, he wields unscrupulously the enormous power his position and the multi-million-dollar resources of 3AW and his other media forums give him.

Last Thursday morning (13 May 2004), he was at it again. Right from the opening of his program, he showed something was getting at him. He kept on muttering about the Catholic Church in Melbourne and its unwillingness to talk to him. The sneering and mocking tone he adopts when reason threatens to overcome his bigotry had been well primed by the time he brought the full power of his microphone down on one solitary tormented priest in the suburbs. This is verbatim what he said:

Monsignor Les Tomlinson [of the Catholic Church in Melbourne] doesn't hold me in high esteem. Neither he nor anyone else in the world for the Catholic Church will talk to me. Fair enough...but... because...I've been set off today. Sometimes a certain phrase can set me off...and it's done that.

A priest who has admitted having sex with a sixteen-year-old boy is back at a church in Williamstown, which adjoins a primary school. The Age [newspaper] reported the details today. We have known before that this was likely to happen, but The Age has the detail today. His name is Fr Barry Robinson.

He had an affair with the boy ten years ago in the United States where he was serving as a priest. He's been allowed back by the Archbishop, George Pell, after a full investigation and the Church says he had an intensive successful treatment - as if you can cure paedophilia or, for that matter, homosexuality. Take a pill and you're no longer gay!

The parents at the school are not happy, some of them. I don't blame them. The Church says he doesn't present a risk. Well, maybe they're right. But this to me is another case of the Church putting itself and its priests ahead of the people it works with. Forget about the congregation and the kids. Worry about ourselves and our reputation.

But I'll tell you what really offended me, and this is a church in Williamstown, what really offended me, this priest who had sex with a sixteen-year-old boy is whingeing...he's complaining...he says, yes, people have a right to be concerned about things, but if it's [sic] continuously trying to tear the guts out of somebody or some issue...obviously you've good no good intention and you're not considering the well-being of anything or anybody. He says the people who question him don't have good intentions. But then this...and this is the button he pushed with me...that really got to me...he says 'Let those without sin cast the first stone...[more emphatically] Let those without sin cast the first stone'.

Well [with abundant sneer and snarl], Father Barry Robinson, I'll cast the first stone. And so will most of this city, because most of us do not use a position of authority to seduce young boys, most of us care more for our kids than we do ourselves [sic].

Now to me, this man's comments show him to be selfish, self-interested and protected by the Church. [Again with huge sneering and clamouring self-righteousness] 'Let those without sin cast the first stone'. Father, we'll line up!!! [great flourish of promotional music] ...As I said, he's pushed my button with that comment. Self-righteousness that sometimes emerges around all forms of organised religion can be revolting.

Self-righteousness...!!! Obviously stomach-turning self-righteousness is not only to be discovered in organised religion.

I would not be surprised if someone with smelling salts had been standing by to bring Mitchell down from his mountain of self-righteousness. One could make endless comment on this self-indulged and self-promoting outburst, but I will limit myself to two aspects. Firstly, there is Mitchell's unconscionable distortion and manipulation of the facts of the case.

Derryn Hinch, 3AW's other anti-Catholic bigot (but in no way in the same league as Mitchell), covered the Fr Barry Robinson case three months before. At the time, I commented that at least Hinch was not stupid enough to try and characterise the case as one of paedophilia. Mitchell, against all the evidence and against normal reason, tries to do just that. He admits most of the facts of the case but continually distorts and manipulates them to achieve the meaning he wants. What are the facts of the case?

 Fr Barry Robinson, on his own accord,  admitted having an affair with a sixteen-year-old male while serving in a Boston parish ten years ago. He admitted to having consensual sex three times. There has been no other publicly admitted or demonstrated sexual contact in the priest's life before or after that.

Mitchell should know that the age of consent for males in any sort of sexual contact was reduced last year in NSW to sixteen years. The homosexual movement and its allies continue to agitate to change the law in those places where the age of consent is not yet sixteen. In practice, though, secular society treats it as de facto. For the purposes of sexual contact, a sixteen-year-old is considered an autonomous moral agent.

Thus far from having any objection to Fr Robinson's involvement with the sixteen-year-old youth, the homosexual rights movement would be in high praise. It is just as it should be between two loving and consenting males, they would say. This was just the sort of union that they had been campaigning on behalf of. This was just the sort of union they were protecting from the homophobic bigots in society. The aims and campaigns of homosexuals have been sanctioned by secular society and buttressed by legislation - as much as community feeling will permit.

As one reads Mitchell's words, one can see that he is admitting the facts (facts that present no misdemeanour or problem in the secular society he is a vociferous defender of), but continually distorts them to give the impression that Fr Robinson is a habitual sexual predator and paedophile.

Ordinary people understand the state of paedophilia as having to do with the abuse of prepubescent females. This is what Mitchell is working on when he talks of protecting 'our kids'. This is what he is appealing to when he refers to the primary school next to the church in Williamstown. Doesn't Mitchell know that primary school caters to children to the age of twelve years and that a normal sixteen-year-old would be in the third year of high school where the secular authorities take it for granted teenagers of that age freely engage in sexual activity? Doesn't he know that far from preventing youths of sixteen having sex, the secular authorities are about ensuring sixteen-year-olds have safe sex and are not discriminated against on the basis of sexual preference? As a confirmed loud-mouth defender of secular society against 'organised religion' he knows it all too well. His stretching and remoulding of the facts show him as we ought to know him: a liar and manipulator bent only on inciting his fellow bigots against one tormented priest.

The Catholic Church has a different view of sexual morality, as is constantly pointed out by homosexual agitators and people like Mitchell. Fr Barry Robinson, having a conscience and knowing that in terms of Catholic teaching he had committed a grievous sin, owned up to his action, admitted he had a problem, and voluntarily sought help. This was not a case of having been found out and subjected to police action. On his own accord he took steps to rectify his behaviour. In any other context, especially in the context of his 'secular morality', Mitchell would be fulsome in his praise of someone that had owned up to his weakness and took steps to change.

But no understanding and charity for a Catholic priest, as far as Mitchell is concerned. Never. This is the media Sharia law. One mistake and the priest deserves destruction. He deserves to have the weight of a multi-million-dollar commercial enterprise wielded by a cowardly media star behind a microphone brought down on him.

Having painted Fr Robinson falsely and unjustly as a habitual sexual predator and paedophile, Mitchell then turns on the Catholic authorities in Melbourne. Once again, he says, they have only their interests at heart. Now remember that Mitchell is consulting a report in The Age. (Incidentally, I should point out that he is sometimes reading directly from the report without acknowledging it.) Let's see how that accusation squares with what he has actually read. These are the relevant parts in the Age report (13 May 2004):

A Catholic priest who admitted having sex with a teenage boy 10 years ago has returned to work at a Williamstown church that adjoins a primary school. Father Barry Robinson's return to St Mary Immaculate Conception comes after public pressure forced him to leave the parish, where he had been assistant priest for seven years before his past was revealed in January.

Former Melbourne Archbishop, George Pell, appointed Father Robinson to Williamstown with the approval of the Church's independent Commissioner Against Sexual Abuse. The priest is widely supported by the Melbourne Archdiocese and many parishioners. But some parents have raised concerns about his re-emergence at the church, which is next to St Mary's primary school...

...[Fr Robinson] had admitted the incident to his therapist, but left Boston in April that year without being questioned or charged by American Authorities. Under the conditions of his ministry, he was not allowed to have contact with youths in the parish or at the school.

When reports of his past surfaced in the media, the Archbishop of Melbourne, Denis Hart, issued a statement saying Father Robinson had been appointed to the parish after 'intensive and successful treatment'. But a month later Archbishop Hart sent a letter to families notifying them that Father Robinson had asked to leave. Father Robinson said he had withdrawn 'because of the pressure of cowards'.

'I was the one who had a problem and I went and reported myself to try and get help, and this is what it's blown into,' he said. [my emphasis.]

Mitchell is drawing from a report which he disregards in the most important points. The Church authorities cannot act with only their own interests in view (as Mitchell conceives it, of course) simply because the Independent Commissioner Against Sexual Abuse is there to override any decisions that do not satisfy the protocols. The regulations and protocols for dealing with charges of clerical sexual abuse were widely discussed and only implemented when all interested parties were satisfied. But actually reading and understanding the detail of this serious issue is far too difficult for his lazy bigoted mind. It may just disturb the pleasure his prejudice gives him.

Quite apart from an independent authority overseeing matters relating to clerical sexual abuse, if Archbishop Hart and Monsignor Tomlinson had been acting in their own interests, surely they would have run a mile from Fr Robinson...got rid of him...got him right out of the country? For who in their right mind would willingly submit themselves to the unrelenting persecution of the media? What Catholic religious in their right mind would willingly open themselves up to an unmerciful anti-religious bigot behind a microphone or behind an editorial?

No, the Church authorities thankfully have a sense of justice and will not destroy an individual merely on the recommendation of the media, no matter what level of hysteria they can whip up. There is a chasm between the actions of Fr Robinson and those of Fr Gerald Ridsdale, who quite rightly is in jail for a long time. Fortunately, properly constituted legal and quasi-legal forums have been established to distinguish between the seriousness of different cases and make just judgments. We should be relieved that the Church authorities submit themselves to these judgments, and not to media demagogues like Neil Mitchell.

The second aspect I want to limit myself to in this comment is the psychopathology of Mitchell's outburst and its implications for the scrutiny of his own life. I invite the reader to read through the outburst again. It's all about Mitchell's personal feelings, all about his 'buttons being pressed', about his being 'set off'. What a luxury to be able to give release to one's personal feelings in front of a multi-million-dollar microphone! What a delusion to think that one's personal buttons are so very important that they're of vital interest to people and society! Mitchell obviously cannot distinguish between what is objectively necessary for society and what his particular heated feelings dictate to his lazy mind. The inability to make such a distinction is evident in his going bleary-eyed over the phrasing, 'He who is without sin cast the first stone'. I am sure that most clear-thinking people would be wondering why this particular wording set off such a rave. Let's look at what motivated Fr Robinson to say this, and whether it was justified in the circumstances. Let's put ourselves in his shoes.

Say you have been guilty of one particularly serious error in your life. You realise the seriousness of it, acknowledge it publicly and take steps to change, steps that mean fairly harsh supervision and re-education. Say that you you undergo all that is necessary for rehabilitation. Say that the following seven years make it plain that your rehabilitation has been successful and you have regained the respect of the people you serve.

If you had been a prisoner in our penal system, you and your supervisors would be lauded for the success of the process. Indeed, you would probably be held up as an example of what can be done, a model of how to deal with people who do wrong. Your case would probably come to the attention of academic circles and be analysed in eminent academic periodicals.

Say then that an untouchable group in our society sets about making your life hell by continually distorting and lying about what you did. Say this group unrelentingly whipped up community feeling against you, no matter what you did. How would you feel? Frantic and despairing and, in a word, bloody awful. And wouldn't you appeal for a fair go and ask people to get off your back. For who has never made a serious error in their lives?

I don't believe anyone would react other than way Fr Robinson did. With Mitchell's low level of tolerance of personal discomfort, one can imagine the ruckus he would kick up in such circumstances. The point is plain and I don't need to develop any further something so obvious. It really comes down to the wording of Fr Robinson's reaction. This is really the point. And it brings us face-to-face with the psychopathology Mitchell's outburst.

Fr Robinson has in fact drawn a most appropriate quotation from the New Testament. The Pharisees brought before Jesus a woman who had been caught in adultery. The penalty for adultery being death by stoning, the Pharisees ask Jesus what should be done. As Jesus began writing with his finger on the ground he said, 'He that is without sin among you, let him cast a stone at her.'  One by one, as each Pharisee saw his sins written in the dirt, they left. Finally, Jesus remained alone with the woman. These verses follow:

Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?
Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.
(John 8:1-12,  Douay-Rheims)

Once one understands the context of Fr Robinson's reaction, one can understand how appropriate the wording of his reaction is. It is admission of guilt with an appeal to forgiveness. It's also a reminder that no one is without serious fault and that through a lack of charity one can easily sink into self-righteous hypocrisy. But how does one explain Mitchell's furious irrational response to these reasonable words? It's simple, really.

Neil Mitchell has an obsessive hatred of the authority and prestige of people and organisations that fail in his view to have a justification for their existence. These are people and groups outside the organisation of secular society. They are organisations in which he can never take part and whose respect he will never experience.  The Catholic Church is first in line here. Then follow all organised religions. Then come the surviving monarchies around the world. His comments during last week on the interest shown in the Princess Mary of Denmark exemplified precisely his obsession. He was all scorn finally ending up declaring, 'I won't kneel before any Princess!' The wording and the detestable associations of Fr Robinson's reaction set Mitchell off.

Finally, if it is okay for Mitchell to line up to stone Fr Robinson without showing any mercy, he surely would not complain if he were subjected to the same treatment for the serious errors he has made. And what could those serious errors be?  It so happens that I have been in a position to observe the sort of temptations people like Mitchell are subject to. I wonder if he has ever succumbed to... After all, he is only human - like the rest of us. Well, he needn't worry about being found out. The people of the media have a mutual understanding about each other's bad behaviour. Anything embarrassing behaviour will be covered up.

5 August 2009
Because this comment has had a growing number of visits during the last few weeks I should in all fairness point out that Neil Mitchell, though still displaying a rigid anti-religious prejudice, has since greatly moderated his views about religion and the Catholic Church. I suspect that comments like the above forced him to confront his deplorable bigotry and the injustice his views are capable of. No doubt, 3AW management had something to say, too. His sacking by Channel Seven's Sunrise program may also have had a sobering effect.

Although I did not comment on The Age's reporting of the Fr Robinson case, that newspaper's grubby unchanging anti-Catholic bigotry is on full display in the above comments. It's a joke that this Fairfax rag adopts such a snooty sanctimonious posture.

11 August 2009
It appears that I have been too hasty in saying (above) that Mitchell has "greatly moderated" his views on religion and the Catholic Church. Delinquents are prone to recidivism. It is no less the case with Neil Mitchell. On this morning's evidence his recidivism appears severe. I'm not surprised. His views about religion and the Catholic Church are determined ultimately by an uncontrollable fetish.

When I am discussing issues of religion with someone like Tom Elliott I know I am talking to someone willing to use his reason. I feel confident that if I can provide evidence that will go against his views he will be susceptible to reviewing that evidence. It is not the case with Mitchell.

I have posted thirteen comments in response to his bigoted outbursts and in the long run, despite some care for a while in his comments (which I had taken for moderation), his compulsion to focus on the lurid images his fetish throws up is irresistible. Other aspects that have a bearing on the case he is ranting about (like this morning's) are completely ignored. I must say that for the last months of last year and most of this year I have not tuned into Mitchell's program because my attention was occupied elsewhere. It's possible that he has been on the rant the whole year about religion and the Church without my hearing it. The last few paragraphs of the 2004 comment on Mitchell's psychopathology still apply. I will be making a comment on today's rant.

7 April 2010
Once again I find it necessary to qualify the above comments, especially seeing that visits to this comment have increased recently. I have been listening to Neil Mitchell (693 3AW) regularly since the beginning of the year. I have to say - and I am happy to do so - that not only has he ceased his anti-Catholic episodes but he has actually defended Christians on a number of occasions against the mockery that gets a good airing in Brumby's Victoria. I don't what has happened to bring about such a dramatic change in attitude towards Christians - and it is dramatic - but it's there. I hope it continues. Fairness is all Christian ask for.

Comment: gerard@gerardcharleswilson.com