The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionIn defense of L’Osservatore Romano
by John L Allen Jr on Nov. 24, 2010
[Note: "All Things Catholic" is being published early this week, ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday in the United States.]
Pope Benedict XVI’s surprising comments on condoms in his new book-length interview with German journalist Peter Seewald, titled Light of the World, obviously has been the big Vatican story this week. I wrote a piece for the BBC analyzing what the pope said and didn’t say, which can be found here: Why condom comments are no earthquake in Catholic teaching. I’ve also laid out other interesting elements in the book in a piece for NCR: Pope on condoms, sex abuse, resignation ... and movie nights
Here, I’ll restrict myself to the hope that when the furor over condoms dies down, people will actually read the whole book. As always, Benedict XVI offers a fascinating diagnosis of the situation facing the church and the wider world. One may disagree with this or that point (and Benedict openly concedes that a pope’s private opinions can be wrong), but his assessments are well worth pondering.
In the meantime, a fascinating subplot has emerged in the form of fierce intra-Catholic blowback against L’Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, which published a set of extracts from the book on Saturday night, including an edited version of Benedict’s comments on condoms. That scoop came ahead of an embargo imposed on other publications, catching the world’s media off-guard and triggering a cycle of sensational and often misleading coverage. It’s already being touted as the latest Vatican communications debacle, and some critics are insisting that heads must roll.
To put my cards on the table, I write to offer a few words in defense of L’Osservatore Romano and its editor, Italian layman Gian Maria Vian.
First, here’s a sampling of what critics are saying.
- Veteran Italian Vatican writer Andrea Tornielli provocatively called L’Osservatore’s scoop a “contraceptive on the consistory,” arguing that the tidal wave of media interest in the book unleashed Saturday night utterly overshadowed what was supposed to be the big news event on Sunday, Nov. 21, when Benedict XVI inducted 24 new members into the College of Cardinals. Tornielli also complained that L’Osservatore presented the pope’s words on condoms out of context and without any explanation.
- American Catholic writer Phil Lawler suggested that L’Osservatore is guilty of a “truly disastrous gaffe,” charging that the paper “violated the embargo” and published the comments on condoms “prematurely and outside their proper context.” Lawler complained that L’Osservatore in recent months has repeatedly embarrassed the Vatican with “puerile articles gushing about the merits of Michael Jackson, the Beatles, and The Simpsons.” This episode, he said, is even worse, provoking misinformation on a critically important issue. In consequence, Lawler said, Vian should be asked to resign.
- Noted American canon lawyer Edward Peters said that as the official release date for the book on Nov. 23 approached, writers, speakers and resource persons had been lined up in the United States and in other nations to provide context and background. Those plans were blown out of the water, he said, by L’Osservatore’s preemptive strike. “If this media fiasco is not enough to bring sweeping changes to [L’Osservatore],” Peters wrote, “then I don’t know what ever will.”
Such severe judgments from well-informed people deserve to be taken seriously, so let me stipulate a key point in the indictment: Presentation of the pope’s words on condoms could have been, and should have been, much better handled. At a minimum, it would have been helpful to call reporters in for a background session with Vatican officials and moral theologians to work through the language on condoms in advance (as well as other potentially headline-grabbing points, such as Benedict’s comments on Pius XII and on papal resignation), rather than scrambling after the fact.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Yet before demanding a purge at L’Osservatore, several other points ought to be made.
First, as a purely factual matter, the Vatican paper did not “violate” an embargo. It simply got a better deal from the publisher, in this case the Vatican Publishing House.
Several media outlets around the world were given permission to publish extracts from the book on Sunday, but had to restrict themselves to chapters one, six and seventeen, which don’t contain any major news flashes. L’Osservatore, because of its special status, was allowed to comb through the entire manuscript, and obviously made some journalistically sound judgments about which sections would be of widest public interest, including the lines on condoms (which come from chapter two). The paper waited until Sunday to run the extracts, though because L’Osservatore is always released the evening before its publication date, it actually came out Saturday night.
In other words, L’Osservatore played by the rules it was given. (If you want to be mad at somebody over the timing, try the Vatican Publishing House.) Frankly, some of the grumbling about a “violation” of an embargo may be no more than raw journalistic envy at getting beat to the punch.
Second, calling for Vian’s head on a platter ignores the great leap forward he’s brought to L’Osservatore since his appointment as editor-in-chief in October 2007.
Visually, he’s introduced color and a better use of graphics. In terms of content, he’s added timely newsmaker interviews, more ecumenical and inter-religious coverage, greater attention to local Catholic news from around the world, harder-hitting editorials and commentary, and a livelier focus on culture and the arts — including, famously, pop culture. (That may not be everyone’s taste, but it works for some. After one of my recent speaking gigs, I was witness to a lively argument between an elderly Catholic woman who thought the piece on “The Simpsons” was a disgrace, and a youth minister who said it stimulated one of the best discussions in her CCD classes she’s ever had.)
As a result, L’Osservatore today feels much more like a real world-class newspaper — it takes chances, raises eyebrows and stirs tongues. It’s become a must-read, with appeal to literate Catholics everywhere, well beyond the narrow circle of professional Vaticanologists. The price of taking chances, of course, is that sometimes the paper misses the mark or goes off half-cocked, but would anyone seriously prefer a return to the old days of a Roman version of Pravda?
Third, the notion that L’Osservatore pre-empted what would otherwise have been wide international attention to the Nov. 21 consistory is a fantasy.
Media interest in a consistory comes, if at all, a full month in advance, with the announcement of the names of the new cardinals. The actual event in Rome is purely ceremonial, and while it may generate some color pieces in the hometown papers of the new cardinals, the idea that it would have been a global media phenomenon if not for L’Osservatore’s scoop is just ridiculous.
This time around, the only real news out of the consistory was the business meeting of the cardinals on Nov. 19, where the sexual abuse crisis was on the agenda — and nothing L’Osservatore did had any effect on that story, since it had a full 24 hours to play out.
Fourth, no matter how well presented the pope’s words on condoms might have been, some degree of distortion was probably inevitable.
My experience is that anytime you put the words “pope,” “condoms,” and “AIDS” into the same sentence, many secular news outlets will go nuts no matter what the context might be. Likewise the blogosphere probably would have erupted anyway, and aggressive pro-choice and pro-life groups would still have rushed to supply their own spin — the former hyping the pope’s words beyond all recognition, and the latter minimizing them into nothingness.
In other words, a communications debacle is sometimes only partly the fault of the communicator. The audience also bears responsibility for listening carefully and thinking patiently, and it’s not clear L’Osservatore has much power to force the world to be more careful and/or patient.
Fifth, let’s face facts: Part of the current blowback is coming from conservatives who have never forgiven L’Osservatore Romano for its relatively friendly assessment of U.S. President Barack Obama in the wake of his election, including Vian’s famous early 2009 remark that Obama is not a “pro-abortion president.”
One can certainly disagree with that view, or point out that L’Osservatore’s editorial line was exploited by political forces in America who wanted to undercut the strong pro-life positions of the U.S. bishops. But in the interests of keeping the record straight, it has to be said that the anti-L’Osservatore anger unleashed this week isn’t just about pious concern that the paper has caused Benedict’s book to be misunderstood; it’s also about settling old political and ideological scores.
Sixth, Vian is a longtime friend of the Vatican’s Secretary of State, Italian Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who hand-picked Vian for the job at L’Osservatore. Bertone’s record as an administrator over the last five years is certainly open to serious debate, but like any big-wig, he’s also got people who would love to wound him for political and personal motives. One good way to do so is by discrediting his most visible appointment.
Some of the finger-pointing at Vian, especially in Italy, thus may partly be a means of scoring points against Bertone. Anyone who watched the notorious “Boffo case” unfold in Italy last year, in which Bertone was rumored to have smeared the reputation of an Italian Catholic journalist through Vian (a claim both have repeatedly denied), knows this is not an entirely fantastic scenario.
None of this means L’Osservatore Romano is blameless for the frenzy over condoms, some of which could have been avoided if the presentation had been more artfully handled. It’s also unfair, however, to lay responsibility for that breakdown entirely at the paper’s doorstep. The Vatican Publishing House, or for that matter the pope himself, could have insisted on attaching whatever context they wanted to the extracts as a condition of giving the paper permission to run them. It’s not as if L’Osservatore was in a position to refuse.
More basically, honesty demands recognizing that mixed in with legitimate criticism of Vian and L’Osservatore are a variety of other forces, including jealousy, politics, and dated expectations of how the Vatican paper ought to behave. It would be tragic if accumulated frustrations over Vatican communications fell primarily upon what has heretofore been one of the few bright spots on that landscape.
Before heads are fitted on pikes, therefore, we probably ought to be sure it’s for the right reasons.
[John Allen is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
All smoke and mirrors. When
All smoke and mirrors. When will Benedict stop talking and just listen for a change? Its about time he stopped talking all together, stopped listening to the inner circle and went and sat with someone sane and just LISTENED. After all this is the methodolgy: Inital thought in German, developed thought in German, translated into Latin and Italian, finally somewhere down the track tranlsated into English (yes authentica version)! Is it then possible to understand what he is trying to say to those in the Continent of Africa, South Amercia and Asia as well as all Engish speaking people! I hope during Advent his pray life keeps him silent. Perhaps he needs to visit a monastery!
from down under
When you suggest that
When you suggest that Benedict needs to do more listening, my guess is that you mean that he listen to YOU.
If you have nothing useful to
If you have nothing useful to add, it may be best to keep your mouth closed and your fingers off the keyboard. Otherwise, your benighted drivel only exemplifies your inability to understand literary and theological works beyond your grasp.
G
@ G Why the personal attack?
@ G
Why the personal attack? Wasn't anon just trying to say how difficult it is to understand what is really meant when there are so many sequential translations involved? Translators will tell you, every translations is an interpretation. So this was not exactly the "drivel" you make it out to be. You sound irritated - have a cup of tea.
Once again, a much needed and
Once again, a much needed and timely analysis of a complex situation. Thank you John Allen!
See, how we Christians love
See, how we Christians love each other. . . .
One comment about Allen's BBC
One comment about Allen's BBC piece. At one point, he writes: "In practice, that means that if someone were to ask a Catholic priest, 'Is it okay to use a condom?' the answer is still supposed to be 'No.'"
Not so fast, John! Shouldn't the answer -- especially given the nuance in BXVI's words that most journalists don't provide -- be another question? Shouldn't the priest, seeking to provide helpful, pastoral guidance, ask: "In what context do you want to use the condom?" Surely the answer may differ depending on who is asking the question, what his/her situation in life is, who it is he/she is having sex with, etc.
Nope. Its a no. unless you
Nope. Its a no. unless you are infertile and have an STD.
I loved the way this story
I loved the way this story was released. It gave little bloggers a chance to comment on the story before our sober, wiser, and better connected elders hogged the entire inter net stage, and lucky for us it happened on a week end.
I don't think there was any mistake here at all. I think Pope Benedict knew exactly what he wanted. Over three days he allowed the story to unfold and develop until he got to his main point. A point he could make very easily because the conservatives fell all over themselves over interpreting the bait he threw them about male prostitutes.
His final message, no spin, no confusion: Condom use can be justified if the primary intent is harm reduction as in the case of HIV. It's very simple, choosing to preserve life over death is a good thing.
"His final message, no spin,
"His final message, no spin, no confusion: Condom use can be justified if the primary intent is harm reduction as in the case of HIV. It's very simple, choosing to preserve life over death is a good thing."
Obviously there is still confusion, because that wasn't the message at all.
Who cares; It's always an
Who cares; It's always an inhumane response from Rome, while people struggle with the real world.
People are not listening anymore to a theology of the dead; those prelates who live in an imaginary kingdom, in an imaginary time, devoid of reality.
While people try to live their lives and cope with the worst economic disaster of our time; the prelates just act as if they and their world is the only important thing happening. They ignore the growing sexual abuse scandal around the Globe and the cover-up goes on while Benedict fiddles and Rome burns again. Why waist the time reporting on Rome; no one cares anymore.
Bulling goes on in our schools and the American Bishops are silent, they will try to stop civil unions around the country and tell us that gays and lesbians are intrinsically disordered, but go on covering up their role in the sexual abuse scandal and go on harassing the victims. Who is intrinsically disordered? Who is morally bankrupt? The Bishops around the world who have corrupted the Gospel of Jesus to assure their absolute power and control.
May the Holy Spirit send us a man like St Francis to rebuild this Church as it falls in ruins? When will common sense take hold and move the people of God to push for a return to the reforms of Vatican II.
Pax et Bonum ......Peace And All Good Be with You all.
Good grief is this rich. I'm
Good grief is this rich. I'm gonna go enjoy my turkey. But before I do, I'd say the "reforms of Vatican II" look nothing like the "Spirit of Vatican II" if one actually bothers to read the documents, and that Benedict himself was a reformer at Vatican II. That and St Francis himself was incredibly loyal to the pope and far from the fluffy lib some people want to portray him as. Perhaps Benedict *is* our Francis...?
Anonymous on Nov. 25, 2010.
Anonymous on Nov. 25, 2010.
You stated:
"Good grief is this rich. I'm gonna go enjoy my turkey. But before I do, I'd say the "reforms of Vatican II" look nothing like the "Spirit of Vatican II" if one actually bothers to read the documents, and that Benedict himself was a reformer at Vatican II. That and St Francis himself was incredibly loyal to the pope and far from the fluffy lib some people want to portray him as. Perhaps Benedict *is* our Francis...?"
-------------------------------------
Benedict is no more a reformer of Vatican II than JP II was---a mangler is more like it! Benedict is no St. Francis, either. Benedict couldn't stand being dirty, wet, cold and hungry like Francis often was. Francis did not try to imitate any pope---he only wanted to imitate Jesus.
The quotes on condom use
The quotes on condom use initially attributed to the Pope, on a high-interest, contentious subject, were sufficiently vague and ambiguous that they invited and supported a multitude of diverse interpretations, a great many of which are being rapidly published. These words, in the context of the book, sat in the publishing pipeline for months, where it is customary to review a product critically before it goes out the door. Whoever helped the Pope prepare for the unique long interview and those responsible for taking a close look at the results before release date deserve far harsher criticism for the resulting brouhaha than L'Osservatore Romano, which you plausibly exonerate.
God Bless Pope Benedict XVI
God Bless Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church.
I think John Allen's
I think John Allen's assessment of the situation is very well stated and balanced with political views on this issue
from within the Vatican and outside of it. (Applause, Mr. Allen!) I would like to see NCR conduct a poll among American Catholics re: the issue. ( Frankly, I would not be surprised to learn that many American Catholics could care less about the Vatican newspaper's report on the issue because of the rapidly decreasing respect for the Vatican's actions, or lack of them, to effectively address one of the most critical issues important to them:sexual abuse by priests in the USA and the world, gender inequity in the church etc. etc.)
John, your adept analysis
John, your adept analysis shows yet again that you are the world's leading Vaticanoligist. You have hit all the right nails on their respective heads. The American Catholic right views everything through the lens of the Republican Party. So if anyone said anything civil about President Obama, there is no surprise they have their bonnets in all in a twist.
"...but would anyone seriously prefer a return to the old days of a Roman version of Pravda?"
The short answer to that John is yes. Not a few of them post comments here on this blog. They don't want to read or hear anything that challenges their intensely rigid notions.
The right reasons, or the
The right reasons, or the 'right wing'reasons.
Congratulations for this analysis.
When NCR was started, I was Business Manager for the Camden Diocese's 'Catholic Star Herald.' Msgr Salvatore Adamo was Executive Editor and Don Jennings was Managing Editor. Bob Johnston was our lead reporter. We stepped out of the 'house organ' style of Catholic journalism and won several Catholic Press Association awards. In spite of this, or because of it, many pastors cancelled parish subscriptions.
The improvements in 'L’Osservatore' seem to be similar to what we did then; and I think NCR helped initiate the change. A change that made Catholic newspapers credible.
So so much in-house Catholic
So so much in-house Catholic bickering by people making their living commenting on the Catholic Church. (not in criticism of John Allen). For instance--who is this noted American canon lawyer Peters--a priest? professor? But certainly one of the above mentioned "professional" Catholics. Do we Catholics in the pews need this man to explain what's going on? In my simple-minded way it sounds very simple, healthy, and not complicated--use condoms for protection from the HIV virus--no matter what kind of sexual activity is involved--gay or straight. Do I have this straight? Or have I totally mis-undestood the Pope? if course I do see that many people will slip down the slope of claiming--why stop at HIV?--Why not all STD's? And then, mental disease. I guess I would need the Peters of the world to help me here--I'm sure a "natural law will be discovered to roll up the slope.
"In my simple-minded way it
"In my simple-minded way it sounds very simple, healthy, and not complicated--use condoms for protection from the HIV virus--no matter what kind of sexual activity is involved--gay or straight. Do I have this straight? Or have I totally mis-undestood the Pope?"
You have misunderstood. The pope was not indicating that the use of a condom is morally justified under such conditions, but rather that the desire of the infected person to use a condom with the intent of preventing the spread of the infection indicates a step along the moral path to conversion. Note that he specifically states that using a condom is not a solution to the problem.
Yes, northcountry1, you have
Yes, northcountry1, you have totally misunderstood the Pope. In context, the Pope said that the use of condoms to prevent HIV transmission might—might—signal a basic, beginning awareness of another person's well-being. But before he said that, he also said that condoms aren't the solution, that fidelity is better and chastity best. (I should note that studies have shown condoms to be of very limited value in fighting off other STDs.) I should also note, you yourself repeated the fact that Dr. Peters is a canon lawyer; did it not occur to you that that might be how he earns his living? Most Catholic bloggers I've read make their living doing something other than commenting on the state of the Church.
How lucky we are to have John
How lucky we are to have John Allen's guidance here! He knows everything. The Vatican should have brought him in long ago. Cardinal Allen? Or, at least, spinner-in-chief.
Kaiser
Seriously though: what about
Seriously though: what about making John the Vatican's Press Secretary? He is fluently bilingual, and, besides, his Confirmation name is Nuance.
Amen. What occured to me in
Amen.
What occured to me in addition to your comment is that this particular spin seemed out of place for the very common-catholic readers of the NCR. It belonged in a venue that caters to professional journalists, writers, publishers, and so on. As I, a common catholic, read this piece my reactions were that this is "much ado about nothing" and it's a "tempest in a teapot." What importance to life as a catholic has the fact that a Vatican paper scooped other big ones globablly (whether ethically or not)? I guess, though, it does come under the banner "ALL Things Catholic"
Robert we really are very
Robert we really are very lucky to have Mr. Allen here.
Here we go again … it is the
Here we go again … it is the fault of Vatican’s own newspaper, it is the fault of journalists exact words “Journalistic incompetence” … the spin goes on and an. I for one am thankful for exposition of truth. Pope got caught unguarded and spewed out what he thought and that is good thing. The official pronouncements on the contraception and use of condemns have caused so much misery not only among poor but even among the priests. The Priests are dying from AIDS related deceases at a rate four times higher than general population. The poor and the ignorant are suffering because they blindly follow the Pope where as the well to do and educated simply ignore what the Church has to say on moral issues and widely practice contraception, abortion and condemns. As to priests it is time to lift the celibacy myth and allow priests to have normal sexual lives instead of living in the shadows and practice sexual abuse of children and women, especially nuns. We do not need any more spin from the author or others.
Nicholas: "See how we
Nicholas: "See how we CHRISTIANS love one another"?
OK, some of the really nasty comments in the "comments" pages in NCR really are by misguided Catholics, I'm sure.
But a lot of the the really nasty "comments" are by anti-Catholics and, not infrequently, outright atheists.
Sometimes it becomes crystal clear. For example, have a look at the comments on Peter Hitchens' book - to do this, go the "NCR book club" and then go back a few pages. Lots of atheists read NCR and comment.
And some of the loonier comments by apparent conservative Catholics in NCR are by atheists in disguise I'm sure, looking to have a little joke.
Plenty of atheist commentators comment in a responsible way. But by no means all.
It shouldn't be assumed that all comments in the comments pages are by Catholics or other Christians.
And people on the internet aren't always what they seem.
Don McLeod
Here we go again … it is the
Here we go again … it is the fault of Vatican’s own newspaper, it is the fault of journalists exact words “Journalistic incompetence” … the spin goes on and an. I for one am thankful for exposition of truth. Pope got caught unguarded and spewed out what he thought and that is good thing. The official pronouncements on the contraception and use of condemns have caused so much misery not only among poor but even among the priests. The Priests are dying from AIDS related deceases at a rate four times higher than general population. The poor and the ignorant are suffering because they blindly follow the Pope where as the well to do and educated simply ignore what the Church has to say on moral issues and widely practice contraception, abortion and condemns. As to priests it is time to lift the celibacy myth and allow priests to have normal sexual lives instead of living in the shadows and practice sexual abuse of children and women, especially nuns. We do not need any more spin from the author or others.
John, you are wrongly
John, you are wrongly interpreting people's motivations. "Part of the current blowback is coming from conservatives who have never forgiven L’Osservatore Romano for its relatively friendly assessment of U.S. President Barack Obama in the wake of his election, including Vian’s famous early 2009 remark that Obama is not a 'pro-abortion president'...it’s also about settling old political and ideological scores."
This is not mere politics and ideology. If it were, human lives and souls would not be at stake. But please understand that there are people who do not see the world through the politically-colored lenses through which you see it. There really are people who are concerned about the effects that people's words have in other people's lives -- and deaths -- without being concerned with scoring political or ideological points.
If it were only that Vian the private citizen had said Obama was not 'a pro-abortion president,' that could be forgiven as just a stupid Italian who doesn't pay close attention to American politics. But given that this came from the editor of the Vatican's newspaper, it had the consequence of making it appear as if the Holy See was not concerned with Obama's radical pro-abortion stance, which is obviously not true. What Vian doesn't see is that the consequence for voting for Obama is more murdered unborn children. I hate to be so blunt, but the word 'abortion' has become so politicized it is easy to ignore.
On top of this is the fact, as Ed Peters pointed, that Vian also allowed Archbishop Rino Fisichella, formerly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, to castigate Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife, Brazil, over the latter's excommunications of physicians who performed an abortion on a 9-year-old girl. However, Vian would not allow Cardoso the chance to respond to said castigation. You preach sound journalism, so you should know that that action is the very antithesis of that goal. In fact, it smacks of an agenda.
In other words, what people like Phil, Ed and myself are seeing is a particular incompetency under Vian's direction. No, we don't long for the days of the Vatican Pravda -- that argument is a red herring. What we do want is a paper that does all the interesting things which you point out they are doing, but which also is clearly the Pope's and Church's ally. Casting a winking eye at the pro-abortion agenda through their endorsement of Obama and castigation of Cardoso, bringing up irrelevant pop culture issues like the Beatles (NY Times: "Forty Years On, Vatican Tells The Beatles They Passed the Audition"), Michael Jackson (Perez Hilton: "The Vatican Loves Michael Jackson"), and the Simpsons (Entertainment Tonight: "Vatican paper says 'Simpsons' are okely dokely"), and now making it appear as if the Pope endorses condoms -- all of these gaffes (and that's the charitable term) are the result of who knows exactly what -- a horrible carelessness, a stupid idea of what a 'relevant' newspaper is, desperate way to get attention. But the result is the same -- widespread confusion and derision of the faith. It should be obvious that this is not what Vian or LOR should be doing and for those responsible for letting it happen -- primarily Vian and those at the Vatican Publishing House -- heads should roll.
Two comments: First, I think
Two comments:
First, I think Mr. Allen is correct in saying that media coverage of the Pope's comment on condoms would not have been significantly different even if reporters had been briefed in advance. Today's media, whether TV, radio or newspapers, don't know the meaning of nuance. They took a carefully nuanced statement from the book and made it sound like a blanket endorsement of condom use. Is it any wonder that the Vatican is wary of speaking publicly about exceptions to standard moral teachings?
Secondly, regarding the statement, "L’Osservatore today feels much more like a real world-class newspaper". Let's hope that does not go too far (see first comment).
It was a comment made to
It was a comment made to boost the sale of Benedict's new book, due at the bookstores on Nov. 23. People who wouldn't have noticed before all the hoopla, now will go out and buy the book, or buy it online.
"...In terms of content, he’s
"...In terms of content, he’s added timely newsmaker interviews, more ecumenical and inter-religious coverage, greater attention to local Catholic news from around the world, harder-hitting editorials and commentary, and a livelier focus on culture and the arts — including, famously, pop culture..."
That was you defending Vian?
With friends like you...
Hello John. I have linked to
Hello John. I have linked to your defense of L'OR on my blog. Your comments occasion a few in reply.
First there is apparently a fact dispute as to whether L’OR had permission to publish what it did when it did. My sources indicated that L’OR did not have such permission, Allen’s suggest otherwise. This should be easy: either L’OR had permission, or it didn’t. If L’OR had permission for doing what it did, my criticisms of it would fail in that respect. If it did not have permission, Allen's defense of it fails in that respect. In any case, my criticism of L’OR for how it did what it did, would stand.
Second, critics of L’OR come in a variety of shapes of sizes and they propose a variety of remedies. (That L'OR even has now a variety of critics in the Church itself says someting, I think.) I hope Allen’s readers make that distinction, and assess my criticisms and my remedies on their own merits. I’m no Vatican insider and I have no clue as to who is who’s enemy. I think L’OR’s comments on, say, Obama were inconsequential (I might be wrong about that). But I do know what I read in L’OR, and what I read is frequently counterproductive, in my considered opinion, to the image the Church should be presenting to the world in its most-recognized newspaper.
Your point six doesn't clear
Your point six doesn't clear OR, it is irrelevant to the question you have posed yourself although the other five are relevant to it.
It occurs to me that LOR may
It occurs to me that LOR may in fact just arrived in the 21st. century. They have "scooped" the competition and gone sensational all in one article. The wisdom of this will tell in sales of the book. So from a marketing standpoint this may be quite unique for LOR; but, it is old hat for most publishers. Now if people actually read the book it may also have some moral merit.
Love your work, John, but I'm
Love your work, John, but I'm not buying
this time. I'm not (or no longer) a journalist, so I'm not in professional competition with Vian. I had forgotten all about the Obama embarrassment when I started calling for a housecleaning at OR, so I wasn't motivated by that. Covering pop culture is a good idea intrinsically, but doing it like a moron does not "raise eyebrows" in any sense in which we shd WANT them to be raised. A Vatican house organ ("Pravda," if you insist) is not a terrible thing for OR to be, given that its efforts to become a Catholic "Vanity Fair" will likely remain pathetic. And Cdl Bertone has a bit of a record of needing to pick his friends more carefully, even apart from Vian.
John Allen is the Vatican's
John Allen is the Vatican's Chief Spinner. He's just their kind of man!
"Fourth, no matter how well
"Fourth, no matter how well presented the pope’s words on condoms might have been, some degree of distortion was probably inevitable." Mr. Allen doesn't this tell you that the paper L'OR should have been more careful? Again as the Vatican's mouthpiece is it really defensible to have done it that way? Wait weren't the so-called conservatives correct that Obama is pro-abortion? Am i missing something?
>> The Vatican Publishing
>> The Vatican Publishing House, or for that matter the
>> pope himself, could have insisted on attaching whatever
>> context they wanted to the extracts
Amen!
Ambiguous statements about condoms are exactly that: statements
that should have been clear. And in the Pope's case, clearly
faithful to the eternal teachings of the Church...
Anon, the Pope is
Anon, the Pope is listening...to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you should listen to the Pope.
It seems to me the proper
It seems to me the proper action to take would be if Gian Maria Vian offered up his resignation thus allowing those who are responsible for the paper's operational control, theological, and philosophical bent to either accept or decline Vian's tender. His leadership presently wants reaffirmation from those in authoritative positions within the Vatican.
Dear John L Allen Jr., As you
Dear John L Allen Jr., As you correctly pointed out Pope Benedict did not endorse an discriminant use of condoms. He just pointed out the first step to becoming the moral person that all of society is looking for might be for an HIV infected male using a condom to prevent the spread of HIV giving some small assurance that HIV might be prevented. He opened a window to teach. Most people realize that sexual promiscuity is running rampant and at some point should be addressed if we are to continue as a human society. We are our own worst enemy. Why do we question further when Pope Benedict did not endorse the general use of condoms?
The musings of the pope sound
The musings of the pope sound like he gives permission for clerics to visit with male prostitutes who use condoms. The spectre of aids is at his doorstep in the Vatican. He is aware that male prostitutes have been procured by Vatican clerics and bureaucrats for Vatican clerics. Thus this gets personal for the pope in as much he has to consider his priests, cardinals, archbishops, bureaucrats getting aids. Thus he will look at the use of condoms because that directly affects his world at the Vatican. Looks like his mind is not so nimble or great, just pragmatics and necessity force him to rethink his ideas. He still ignores women and wives who get infected, his mind and concern is for his own male clerics and staff, those who frequent male prostitutes.
So priests are dying faster
So priests are dying faster of aids than other groups of people? Due to having to hide the disease and their homosexual inclinations (as well as heretosexual) from others. Has BXVI finally got a bit of a conscience to stop some of the harm his suppression and ignorance his previous anti-condom statements has caused so far? Now he okays condom use for homosexual prostitute activity so it may cut down on how many clerics get infected by using the now allowed, previously forbidden condom.
New books by BXVI soon to be at your bookstore:
1. When Condoms Came to the Vatican
2. The Curious Case of the Pope and The Condom in the Middle of the Vatican
3. Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil and the Pope's Condoms
4. The Pope Says Yes Condoms if You Are 2 Males
5. Same-Sex-Safety Is OK (but not for woman-man, they are expendable!)
They use to joke about JPII pope soap on a rope, now it's BXVI's condoms selection, hope they are holier not hole-ier.
Ah, Benny, you can not make this stuff up.
Pope BXVI, just gets musing outloud, loud and proud. BXVI Stop killing millions worldwide with your ban on condoms to anyone else but clerics visiting male prostitutes. First you enable pedophiles and now this hypocrisy. All to flog your new Roman translation, save 'some men' especially clergy.
After the first column on the
After the first column on the condoms subject, John had one on how premature story overshadowed the Pope's sermon the next day -- one that apparently was on problems of continual misunderstanding of Christ's message down to the present. Perhaps the release was not a mistake.
The pyramidal structure and
The pyramidal structure and model of governance upon which the RCC Inc. is built is crumbling at the hands of these self-serving and the vainglorious henchmen in red recently raised to the College of Cardinals by Pontifex Benedict. This is an unmistakable sign to lay members that they should think now in terms of rebuilding the Church horizontally rather than vertically. Starting with their own parish, liturgy, and sacraments-- creating a new Catholic culture built upon a system of smaller diocesan units reaching to the level of patriarchates at the head of national synods. Finally freed from Vatican corruption, autocracy, and short-sightedness.
The recent Fellini-like sideshow with the 24 cardinals in Rome was a perfect example of decrepitude in action. An institution celebrating its own decay and the decline struggling with the world as the hierarchy must find it. Not a world of their making to be sure, but, nevertheless railing against change of any kind. Whether it be liturgical, political, or in the area of bio-ethics and public morality. Losing Catholics by the thousands.
Smells, sights, and beautiful sounds may pour profusely from Rome, but the stench emanating from the head on Peter's Barque is unmistakable.
Now it's time for the local parish and diocese to begin reaching out to other ecclesial bodies possessing a similar heritage of valid orders and apostolic succession, i.e. the Orthodox, Polish National Catholic and similar bodies to seek solidarity with them on all fronts. Leaving our Pontifex Maximus to fumble and stumble with the prelatical Marx Brothers he's selected and around whom he continues to surround himself.
The Temple needs to be purified of the money changers and pharisees. Cleansed of the rot and the decay which only continues to spread more and more out of control.
Post new comment