I am aware I seem to 'have it in' for some recidivist 'offenders' such as John Allen and Giovanni Maria Vian, editor of the OR. Obviously, it's not against them as persons, but against their repeated journalistic and editorial transgressions or bad judgment - some of which may be minor (such as Allen's careless use of language) but which do have unintended consequences if not being outright counter-productive for the Pope and the Church.
The OR did it again Saturday when it not only broke an embargo that had been observed till then by the news media on printing excerpts from the new interview book with the Pope, but it included an 'excerpt of an excerpt' that served to misrepresent what the Pope really said about condoms. It's as if Africa-March 2009 had never happened... [To make it worse, the OR translation used the Italian feminine form 'prostituta' insteada of the hypothetical male prostitute actually cited by the Pope!]
And now, Fr. Lombardi's clarification - even if it came 24 hours after the OR posted its 'advance' story online - is undergoing the fate of most clarifications and denials: Hardly anyone pays attention to it.
In the online catalogs of headlines today about the Pope, all the reactions welcoming the false 'news' - hailed as 'historic' in an AP wrap-up - outnumber the reports on Fr. Lombardi's statement by more than 2 to 1.
What is with Mr. Giovanni Maria Vian? He's intelligent and a recognized scholar in his own field, but as an editor, he is, to say the least, clueless. And as long as he continues with his appalling misjudgments, he is not serving the Pope as I am sure he believes he is doing.
Since realistically, it is unlikely the Pope will fire him, he should start wising up. Does he not read what other qualified Catholic commentators have been writing about his lapses in editorial judgment? Yet, being obsessed about the Beatles and the Simpsons when there are so many more topics worthy of taking up space in the scant eight pages of the Pope's newspaper, is trivial in every sense, compared to the equivalent of shooting into your own basket - 'auto=gol', the Italians call it - that Saturday's gross faux pas was! In fact, it was more like lethal friendly fire.
In any case, I like this reaction to the whole condom issue by a Catholic blogger with a Jewish name... And her 'Sha-zam!' photo, too!
Il Blabbatore Romano
by Simcha Fisher
November 21, 2010
I’m not a moral theologian, and every time I try and play one on the internet, I regret it. On the other hand, it would be kind of weird not to acknowledge the brouhaha about the Pope’s comments that L’Osservatore Romano leaked, apparently following
its mission to act as the poorly-informed, half-senile uncle who blurts out crazy stuff and makes things so awkward around the holidays. Sorry about Uncle Romano — he . . . he doesn’t really represent our family. Just give him some more pie, and maybe he’ll be quiet.
Nothing that the Pope said changes anything in Catholic teaching — both because (a) his remarks aren’t Catholic teaching; and (b) anyway, he didn’t say anything contrary to Church teaching.
Basically what he said was that the use of condoms might signal that people are starting to move toward a more humane view of their sexual partners, because at least they are thinking about not spreading disease. The Church is in favor of people beginning to move toward more moral behavior. This is not news.
For a lucid explanation about what the Pope really said, please read Jimmy Akin’s short piece in the Register. Akin also has a link to the full text of the Pope’s remarks and to Janet Smith’s guide to the uproar so far.
[All of which I previously posted on this thread - see preceding page.]
Hey, remember when that 'feeble old man' was elected Pope, and the press figured he was just a seat-warmer until the College of Cardinals could find someone more suitable?
KA-BLAMMO!
Even if you don’t like the guy, I don’t see how you can’t admire him. He was ready to retire, and instead he got a life sentence to a job that any sane person would dread. So he dove in head first and got to work, and hasn’t come up for air since.
May God bless and keep and strengthen him. This is what true courage and fortitude looks like.
Final question: what the heck is wrong with
L’Osservatore Romano? Were they were looking to boost circulation, or what? My husband works for a newspaper, so I asked him what they do when their numbers are down. He said, “Fire reporters.” Not a bad idea.
For the record, here's Amy Welborn's wry and very apposite commentary on 'what hath OR wrought'! emember, she was one of the selected few who got an advance copy of the book to be able to publish a review at the proper time. She and everybody else in the English world honored the embargo, but not the OR, as we now know...
Well, that went well
by Amy Welborn
November 20, 2010
So much for a gradual rollout.
What’s most unbelievable about today is who broke the embargo –
L’Osservatore Romano, that’s who. With a mistranslated section that’s what.
(I think – I’m assuming. The Italian translation had a feminine article with prostitute and the English version that I read and that has been published at the link below is specific about male prostitute.)
Jimmy Akin had a good summary.
The point? No,
the Pope did not have a “condom conversion” as Ruth Gledhill so idiotically put it on Twitter. What he said – whether he should have said it or not is another issue – but whatever the case it really is nothing new and has nothing to do with the Church’s teaching on contraception either.
It’s an articulation of his concern for and interest an individual’s moral progress – ironically enough.
Here’s what I’m going to say – this whole conversation is going to be flipped on its head when the rest of the interview comes out, and the people who are either crowing about or mourning the Pope changing the Church’s teaching on contraception or sexuality or something are really not going to know what to say next.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 22/11/2010 20:18]