There have been a whole bunch of opinion columns in the Australian newspapers recently, filled will jaw-dropping stupidity and hypocrisy. For example:

...

A plague of atheists has descended, and Catholics are the target

Satirised beautifully (as always) in Jesus and Mo.

TRiG.

Alex, thanks for the clarification, but my point is still valid. Gillen did indeed accuse atheists of lacking morality...

I disagree. What Gillen is saying, in the passage you quote, is that Singer has a moral code that would require him not to save his mother's life under certain circumstances*. This is entirely true. According to Singer's moral ideas, if his mother decided, while competent to do so, that she would prefer not to live after her disease reached a certain stage, it would be immoral to continue to extend her life beyond that. Gillen criticized that stance (really incompetently), but he certainly never accused all atheists of holding it.

The thesis of Gillen's column isn't that atheists lack morality, it's that atheists only act morally when they're behaving like theists. That is bigoted, not to mention circular.

If anybody's interested, by the way, Singer gives a nice rundown of his views in this lecture at the Centre for Inquiry.

*He doesn't seem to understand what those circumstances are, but never mind.

Let me explain: he went against his own moral code, which in this case would have required him not to help his mother because it is more logical to help others with a better probability of surviving.

You're right, though---you wouldn't have known from Gillen's article about the entirety of Singer's true predicament. How convenient.

Gillen is saying Singer has a "moral code" that would "require him not to help his mother."

Singer is a proponent of euthanasia, and his mother has apparently stated that she would prefer not to continue living if her Alzheimer's disease reached a certain point, which it has. As I understand it, the complaint is that Singer is being inconsistent by not giving his consent to stop life-prolonging treatment for her, at least according to the article that Modus linked above (although this article suggests that he would prefer to withdraw care but his sister would not).

Not that you would learn any of this from Giller's article. He makes it sound like Singer is a medical doctor who failed to triage properly.

HE DIDN'T ACCUSE ATHEISTS OF LACKING MORAL VALUES

Learn to read. Here's Gillen's actual words, quoted by you:

Let me explain: he went against his own moral code, which in this case would have required him not to help his mother...

Gillen is saying Singer has a "moral code" that would "require him not to help his mother."

And Gillen didn't accuse atheists of lacking moral values?

Pay attention, man!

The cardinal warned for “the ideologically-inclined biophysicists, neuroscientists an evolutionists” who try to persuade people “that there is no God, and consequently there is no truth or falsehood..."

I'm sure we can all agree that scientists never say, 'That isn't true.'

On a more serious note, maybe I can get this bishop to talk to my profs, informing them of what they're supposed to say. It'd free up a fair bit of my time.