a star is born
By Diogenes (articles ) | Nov 23, 2010
The Vatican newspaper has never been daily reading for the staff of the slick online ‘zine. But on November 22, the Slate “Explainer,” which provides “answers to your questions about the news,” saw fit to give a highly favorable profile of L’Osservatore Romano, stressing the changes under the direction of new editor Giovanni Maria Vian, which have made the paper more “relevant.”
Now what do you suppose L’Osservatore did to catch the approving eye of Slate on November 22? Could it be? Yes, it could. Slate began paying careful attention when the Vatican newspaper published an out-of-context excerpt from the Pope’s new book.
The pope's comments, which were published Saturday in the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, represent a break from the 42-year-old Catholic ban on artificial contraception.
If you investigate the matter at all carefully (which most Slate readers won’t do), you’ll learn that the Pope’s comments did not change anything about Church teaching. And the condemnation on artificial contraception was not something arbitrarily imposed by the Catholic Church 42 years ago; it dates back to the Book of Genesis. Still, you can draw this lesson from the otherwise unreliable report: When an authoritative Catholic publication seems to leave the door ajar for acceptance of contraception, Slate takes notice.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: a son of Mary -
Dec. 18, 2010 1:30 PM ET USA
Every journalist I've ever met has been decrying the state of Journalism - it's been decaying for years. Formerly great papers, even medium sized city papers had foreign correspondents. Today there's just a few left. Nowadays the writing is terrible, little or no fact checking, and a lot of 3rd rate hacks bent on circulation not facts get into print these days.
Posted by: Wild Bill -
Nov. 23, 2010 5:40 PM ET USA
Since when was L’Osservatore Romano considered authoritative?
Posted by: mjarman7759049 -
Nov. 23, 2010 4:22 PM ET USA
Journalism, as we used to understand it, simply doesn't exist any more. No one in the main stream media takes the time to research anything, preferring instead to assume they know everything they need to know if they heard about it on Opera. The editors are so lacking in basic humanities backgrounds that they can't spot errors any more or even know what should be fact-checked.