Michael Hill - Editor

The prophetic voice

Ten years of life is a very good reason for the editors and Board of Tui Motu to take stock. The issue before them is far wider than whether Tui Motu is financially viable or whether its circulation is gaining ground, though both are important.

Here are some reflective thoughts from the pen of the 1995 editor of the Bombay Examiner, India’s leading Catholic weekly. A Catholic paper’s job, he says, is:

• to inform its readers, so that the Catholic community can help better find its identity;
• to interpret the contemporary world, using a ‘holistic perception’. “This is the place for the ethical and the spiritual – not in the narrow moralistic or religiously communal, but as interpreting human values in their most integral sense” (our italics). Clearly here is where the prophetic function comes in.
• to reflect the opinions of its readership. “To be Catholic by definition means to be universal, pluralistic, non-sectarian. It means accommodating a variety of political opinions, cultural expressions and theological arguments”.

When I first read that in 1995 I thought the writer’s interpretation of what was needed in India, corresponded closely with the situation here in New Zealand. I still do. Tui Motu describes itself as an independent Catholic magazine. That means that it places itself squarely within the Catholic tradition, yet happily offers the hospitality of its pages to a variety of different voices, usually but not invariably from other Christian churches.

This is based on a firm belief that Christian wisdom is always growing. Like John Henry Newman, we maintain that Christian doctrinal teaching continually develops. Change is part of growth in holiness. We seek the truth, but we acknowledge this to be a painful process which often involves abandoning long cherished positions and beliefs.

An essential part of this process is the critical voice. The editor, as Michael Fitzsimons said in an address in Auckland last September to the Australasian Catholic Press Association (pp 6-7), needs to be distanced from church professionals, from the sources of power. This will enable the Catholic press to become ‘a countercultural voice, a Gospel voice – full of surprises and instinctively on the side of the underdog’.

We are pleased to include Michael’s paper. He speaks with the voice of experience since he too sat in the editorial chair. We also sought the views of his predecessor at Zealandia, Dennis Horton. His views on editorial freedom are printed on page 13. They should be read in conjunction with the Fitzsimons article. We are grateful to both for their considered opinions.

Being a prophetic voice is clearly a demanding role to play whether in the secular world or in the church. It is an essential ingredient of any just society, whose peace and stability depend on a balance of power between legislature, executive and judiciary. To these should be added the so-called ‘fourth estate’, the press – that independent critical voice which affirms the good and exposes the evil in the processes of both church and state.

It is up to you, our readers, to judge whether Tui Motu fulfils this function. and whether it deserves another ten years of life.

M.H.

The key question is whether Tui Motu is fulfilling adequately the task it was originally set. Is it a prophetic voice for the New Zealand church?

The choice of the word prophetic is deliberate. It has a long and honourable religious history. A sizeable chunk of the Bible consists of ‘prophetic’ writings. Prophets were regarded as the mouthpieces of God. That would be an almost blasphemous claim to make of any religious journal. Nevertheless there are aspects of Biblical prophecy which provide some useful criteria for judging editorial style.

From the very beginnings of prophetic literature prophets were political commentators. Their pronouncements applied to specific, contemporary events or problems. They were particularly active during times of crisis. They were not afraid to confront authorities. They were invariably single voices, although they often attracted disciples. Their task was not to predict the future – that’s a misconception – although they often issued dire warnings. They usually drew upon themselves persecution. Jesus himself was often called a prophet.

So, becoming a prophet is not an easy vocation. To claim to be the mouthpiece of God is not one many editors would make, although some have; or at least, they have acted as if they were the voice, if not of God, then of the Magisterium. Megalomania is an abiding temptation for those with power, even the power of the pen.

Editors therefore must be answerable for their pronouncements. That is usually provided by the readers themselves and by a Board, whose job it is to monitor what the editor is saying and doing. But where does that leave ‘editorial freedom’?

Freedom, in the tradition of the church, has never meant the licence to do and say as you like. It means the freedom to pursue the truth and to disseminate it. Paul VI said as much in 1971 in the document Communio et Progressio, which supported responsible editorial freedom and condemned the publication of biased views or suppression of the truth. The religious editor, therefore, has a responsible role in the church, one that can be lonely and burdensome.