Having issues and the defining issues?

I stumbled across the following article and something struck me. The author says:

How come the deciding issues of whether one is a member of the church or not always seems to come down to issues concerning sexuality.
The usual suspects, gay marriage, abortion, etc are always and ever the issues that we are told are the defining issues as to whether or not we are catholic.
Has anyone ever heard of a bishop saying that tax fraud barred one from being a catholic? Has ever a bishop clearly and unambiguously spoken so strongly against the evil of poverty - one in six of the world's population are starving?

The author's point of view is not uncommon these days, and demonstrates how the media filters people's perceptions of the Church. You'll note that he mentions abortion as being one of those issues 'concerning sexuality' which is a defining issue. I would argue that the question of abortion primarily concerns the value of life - the 5th commandment rather than the 6th commandment - and that the author neglects to mention the Church's resistance to euthanasia.

Yes, the meaning of sexuality is one of those areas where the teaching of the Church meets most resistance in the modern world. But it's not something which the Church obsesses about. It's the media who are sex-obsessed. It seems to me that papal and episcopal statements are combed by the media for passing references to sexual morality, these are then cherry-picked and reported, and the rest of what the Church has to teach is neglected. When the Church speaks out against poverty or on environmental issues or against greed, it simply doesn't make headlines. Why? Because it doesn't really titillate the head-line makers. It doesn't attract the attention of the sub-editors. A fair reading of the speeches and messages of any of the recent Pontiffs - they're all available on the Vatican website - will show that the Church speaks out on a whole gamut of issues and offers a radically challenging and uplifting vision of the human person.

Meanwhile, the author of that article presents the following as his parting shot:

Also, is there not something unusual about bishops going on and on in such solemn tones on matters of sexuality while they adorn themselves with chains, crosses, rings and long frocks?
Is one ever struck by the visual appearance of so many bishops?

Again, it seems to me that the problem is with the imagination of the author... Normal episcopal regalia becomes chains, crosses, rings and long frocks... And if he's talking about Irish Bishops, he should be very well aware that they normally present themselves for public consumption in a clerical suit.

'Mentioned in the Murphy Report'

This news report is worth reading. It deals with the pressure on Bishop Martin Drennan to resign. The key sentence - to my mind - is:

The bishop has been under mounting media pressure since four of his colleagues mentioned in the Murphy report on how allegations of child sex abuse were handled in the Dublin archdiocese have tendered resignations.

Firstly, the 'story' here is about media pressure. This pressure which the media applies is one which doesn't come under near enough scrutiny. What is the motivation behind this pressure and who sees that it is applied responsibly?

Secondly, it seems to me that the only accusation leveled against Bishop Drennan is that he is 'mentioned in the Murphy Report'. This phrase seems to have taken on a voodoo-like power. It portends all kinds of wrong-doing and suggests imminent disaster for the one 'mentioned'.

What worries me in this case is that Bishop Drennan is merely 'mentioned' in the Murphy Report. He's not criticised in the Murphy Report. His behaviour wasn't found to be inadequate or harmful in the Murphy Report. No, he was 'mentioned' in the Murphy Report, and therefore there is 'Media Pressure' for him to resign. What is this? Some form of McCarthyism? What if one were to point out that Archbishop Martin is also 'mentioned' in the Murphy Report? Will there be media pressure for his resignation? Indeed, TV and Radio personality Gay Byrne is, if you want to be technical about it, also 'mentioned' in the Report. I guess he's lucky that he's already retired or he might have to face pressure as well.

To my mind, the targeting of Bishop Drennan shows that the line has been crossed between the media acting in the public interest and the media stoking up a witch hunt. Bishop Drennan has been accused of no crime or negligence. He was made Auxiliary Bishop of Dublin in 1997 - at a time when it seems that the handling of abuse cases was being put right. Anyone who has taken the time to actually read and digest the Murphy Report will find nothing even mildly critical of him.

What then is his crime? Guilt-by-association with Cardinal Connell? Being in the wrong place several years after the wrong time? Or is it simply the case of someone wanting an episcopal scalp?