When the Rev. Wayne A. Forbes recently criticized an editorial cartoon showing a Catholic leader telling abuse victims, “Beat it — we’re bankrupt” outside “Saint Paedophilia’s Catholic Church,” his sermon drew a standing ovation.
“I think when you attack people’s religious faith and there’s no reality to it, then it really hurts,” Forbes, the pastor of the Church of St. John Fisher in Southwest Portland, later said in an interview.
As a Catholic, I flinched when I saw the editorial cartoon.
But as a journalist, I respected the fearless expression of one perspective on the abuse scandal.
I must admit I struggle to reconcile the two reactions.
Since the drawing by national cartoonist Pat Oliphant appeared on July 10, The Oregonian has heard from many angry Roman Catholics, several of whom canceled their subscriptions. They mostly focus their anger on two issues:
One is that they consider the Catholic leader in the cartoon to represent the Most Rev. John Vlazny, archbishop of Portland, because his archdiocese is the only one to have filed for bankruptcy. They say that the syndicated cartoon disregards Vlazny’s consistent compassion for victims and that he filed for bankruptcy to ensure that all victims are treated equitably with the church resources.
The other issue is that the cartoon broadly taints all Catholics by referring to it as “Saint Paedophilia’s Catholic Church.” The Catholic Church is the people, they say, not the church hierarchy or a small minority of bad priests.
Forbes says he believes the Catholic Church’s actions should be the subject of hard-hitting editorial cartoons. But he argues those cartoons should be based on a truth — and this one wasn’t. “Opinion has to have some reality to it,” he said. “Every part of that cartoon is a lie.”
Yet those who study and collect editorial cartoons say cartoonist Pat Oliphant should evoke a strong reaction and can use exaggeration to do it.
“Oliphant did his job that day,” says Lucy Shelton Caswell, professor at Ohio State University and curator of the Cartoon Research Library, who likes the comparison of an editorial cartoon to a poke in the eye. “That’s exactly what the point is. It is to make readers think about something that they haven’t thought about before, or in a way that they haven’t before.”
Chris Lamb, an associate professor of media studies at College of Charleston, and the author of “Drawn to Extremes: The Use and Abuse of Editorial Cartoons in the United States,” says editorial cartoonists rely on caricature to make their points. “He used satire and hyperbole to reach his own conclusion on this important story,” he says. “These are the stories we need to make comment about.”
Lamb says he fears the declining number of newspaper editorial cartoonists, and what he sees as the increasingly tepid nature of many cartoons, as harmful to democracy. Newspapers increasingly “are afraid of saying anything that might criticize anyone,” he says. “What’s the point of having free speech if we’re not using it?”
Bob Caldwell, The Oregonian’s editorial page editor, shares those values and tries to give editorial cartoonists wide berth. But he also recognized that choosing editorial cartoons involves judgment calls, and when pressed after hearing the reaction to the Oliphant cartoon, he says, “I thought it was fair comment, but I probably wouldn’t use it again.” He understands now why many readers viewed the cartoon as representing Vlazny and apologizes that they drew that inference.
But Caldwell disputes the criticism that the cartoon smeared all Catholics. “This was quite clearly a dart aimed at the clergy and the church leadership and not at the church or the membership at large,” he says.
Jack Ohman, The Oregonian’s editorial cartoonist, says he would not have drawn the cartoon because it painted Catholics with such a broad brush by referring to the “Saint Paedophilia’s Church.” A cartoon must be clear on whom it is targeting; Ohman doesn’t shy from stinging opinion, but he strives to make sure that he does not harm anyone unintentionally.
Yet he also defends Oliphant’s right to draw his opinion and says that someone as brilliant as Oliphant will step over the line occasionally to stay fresh and bold. “He’s the gold standard,” Ohman says of Oliphant, a Pulitzer Prize winner and the dean of editorial cartoonists.
In addition to the cartoons Ohman draws, the newspaper can choose from among 10 or so syndicated cartoons each day to fill one to two slots on the opinion pages. The aim of editors is to publish timely and relevant cartoons that are based on news developments and will provoke readers to think.
I wish the cartoon had reflected more precision in its target, and not poked all Catholics in the eye.
But ultimately, as a Catholic and a journalist, I believe the issue demanded comment that week because of the bankruptcy filing. And, as painful and as exaggerated as it might be, the cartoon offered a view held by many, a provocative one that’s legitimate to share in the newspaper. To see the controversial cartoon, see: www.ucomics.com/patoliphant/2004/07/10/.
