Saltpetre,
sometimes the things you say are "quite well put", other times you talk rubbish.
Geraldine Doogue is a fine example of the modern phenomenon of "journalistic celebrity", wherein instead of reporting the news it's the reporter front and centre, hence the snippet of mine you've cut and pasted, which was originally couched in the context of my being a "long-time troubled-listener". I enjoy the rich, fruity bouquet with which Geraldine holds forth, but the way she gushes optimistically over the human spirit etc., like pollyanna, is not to my taste. I like a dry wine and she's more like a Muscat.
Her article is case in point, there's lots of pussy-footing around her fine institution but there is no "essence", or substance, to anything she says:
<I know the Church frames my identity, as basic as that. It's the source of consolation without peer. I can't slough it off: it's too embedded in the way I see the world and myself">
The same applies to her Liberal politics. But what about journalistic objectivity: fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, nonpartisanship?
These are the principles journalism was built on. Instead, Geraldine and many others, if not most these days, set themselves up, or are professionally groomed, as role models, and we're encouraged to worship at their shrines. We no longer get the raw news, which we're no longer capable of contemplating critically anyway; it's all pre-masticated and dripping with the saliva of populism.

I have to admit that that I've long admired Geraldine Doogue's demeanour and her approach to exploring the human penchant for spirituality. I also see bravery and insight in this article. She's attempting to put her finger on just what it is that nourishes her Catholic faith - and finding the germ of that faith not only in the traditions of the institutional church (tainted as it is), but more so in the mental and moral stability - the ballast of meaning - that is at the heart of each individual's journey through the secular world.

I have friends who are regular church-attending Catholics. They are the most balanced people I know. They had a big family, all of whom now have their own families, and even though these adult children have not embraced the regularity and faith of their parents, they all still cling to the hem of the churches apron, baptising their children and sending them to Catholic schools. It's as if their parents provide a sort of proxy faith, a continuum in which they themselves aren't required to make the effort, but one in which they still reside under the shelter of the church through the example of their parents. I've rarely seen a closer, less dysfunctional extended family than this one.

I think that's what Geraldine is trying to say, that it's Catholic people who take their experience of institutional Catholicism out into the world. They are essentially "it", and attitudes implicit and meaning derived from the mix of secular and church experience are what will mold the future of Catholicism.

That's interesting, Squeers.

I don't see a person such as Geraldine Doogue as some raw, cut and dried journalist who should stick to merely reporting the facts. If I want that, I'll stick to the news. If I choose to watch or listen to people like her, it's because I want them to say something that makes me think, to challenge my intellect and view of the world and humanity. What a waste it would be of people like Geraldine Doogue were bound to nothing but journalistic factuality - no exploration, no reaching beyond the bland substance of existence.

She's an articulate, compassionate and spiritually inquisitive human being. The media landscape is richer for people like her.

I'm reading this thread with Saturday Extra, which is anchored by Geraldine Doogue, running in the background. It is superb radio. Conversational and extremely informative. Geraldine has done her research, and more often than not puts quotes from one expert to another.

I've been a fan of Doogue's for years.

If you want to hear celebrity radio, then tune in to Late Night Live with Philip Adams. Philip spends far too much time injecting himself into the debate.

This conversation thread puts me in mind of an interview yesterday on Steve Austin's program: http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2012/08/religion-and-ethics-1.html?site=brisbane&program=612_morning

Did you know that Christians are apparently the most persecuted religion in the world? Neither did I, but reading the threads on OLO it is not just something that happens in other countries.

Saturday Extra has long been a delightful start to the weekend for me and I admit that part of the appeal is the timbre or tone of Geraldine Doogue's voice as much as her presentation (not to be confused with journalism).

I've never found any of her interview subjects other than encouraged and given the chance to explain their position or opinion. I don't recall ever having paused to think whether she was Catholic or not.

Anyone who is self-reflective and introspective is spiritual to some extent – for some this finds expression in religion – for others, in the absence of it.

Maybe it's because of my protestant upbringing and I know this comment is somewhat simplistic but, it does summarise the issue I have with the article…

When asked their religion, I found most people (who are) will answer Christian and maybe then tell you where they worship except for Catholics who always answer Catholic first.

Form being more important than content? Or conforming being more important than being content?

@GrahamY: "Did you know that Christians are apparently the most persecuted religion in the world?"

Sorry, Graham, you'll have to explain how being given generous tax breaks and free media coverage, getting permission to set up and run your own doctrinaire schools at public expense, having employment laws waived on your behalf, being funded by the taxpayer to put your mouthpieces into schools and military units, and -- until recently -- knowing the law would turn a blind eye to your assaults and rapes equates to being 'persecuted'.

I can't see it myself. Maybe you should get someone else to explain what 'persecuted' means. You could start with a gay being denied the right to marry, or a terminally ill patient in pain being denied the right to a quick painless death.