Has the Tablet Completely Lost the Plot?

Many of us would say yes; a long time ago!

I'm going to use this brilliant post by Mac McLernon to basically get Stephen Fry's grinning countenance of the front of my blog.

Time For A Reality Check...?

After Professor Tina Beattie signed a letter in The Times which was at variance with Catholic teaching, her invitation to speak at Clifton Cathedral was withdrawn. Given that Prof. Beattie has never made any secret of her opinions, one might wonder why she was asked to speak in the first place. 

Be that as it may, it was encouraging that Clifton diocese had seen how untenable it would be to have such a speaker scheduled. Prof. Beattie explained to the Catholic Herald that she was saddened by the cancellation, but that, after discussion, she understood it and accepted the reasons for it. 

The Pill editorial has allowed itself an interesting slip in its haste to rush to Prof. Beattie's defense. 

After noting that the letter to The Times distorted the words of Cardinal Hume in order to make it appear that SSM was not incompatible with Catholic teaching, and suggesting that the Bishop of Clifton might have thought this indicated a lack of good faith, the editor goes on to state that, "...apart from that consideration... the cancellation of the lecture was indefensible." 

Sorry? Run that by me again... 

A letter, signed by Prof. Beattie, deliberately uses a selective quote from Cardinal Hume to bolster the idea that it is possible to accept same-sex marriage as not being contrary to Catholic teaching, (because it's all about love, really...) and Professor Beattie says that she stands by the contents of the letter... and then The Pill tries to suggest that theBishop's decision is indefensible??? 

I don't think so. As Leutgeb has pointed out, no other organisation would accept this level of dissent from an employee or member.
What is indefensible is the fact that The Pill can write this tripe and still claim to be Catholic.