Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

,

Catholics and journalists call for heads to roll at L’Osservatore Romano

Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Image

ROME, November 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - For perhaps the first time, mainstream journalists are joining with conservative Catholics in criticizing the editors of the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano for having created this weekend’s media maelstrom over Pope Benedict’s comments on condom use for AIDS prevention. The pope’s brief comments were a small section of a new interview book, released in Rome today, by German journalist Peter Seewald

Catholic commentators and mainstream journalists alike are denouncing L’Osservatore Romano for what they identify as its “betrayal” of the Pope and of accepted standards of journalistic ethics.

Christine Vollmer, a founding member of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life and president of the Latin-America Alliance for the Family, told LifeSiteNews.com that the action by L’Osservatore Romano to leak the comments prior to the launch date was a betrayal of Pope Benedict, and called for its editor-in-chief, Gian Maria Vian, to be sacked.

“The big mistake,” she said, “for which Vian would be fired from any normal employ, is that, knowing there were those phrases in the book, they had no explanations ready.” This failure to prepare adequately for the media onslaught that was certain to follow, Vollmer said, is “utterly inexcusable.”

“So much so, that normal incompetence is not credible. It would seem that, as with the Fisichella article, the editorial line is to incite doubt on moral matters.” Vollmer was referring to the uproar that ensued last year when the paper published, and refused rebuttal on, the notorious article by Archbishop Rino Fisichella on the abortion of twins of a nine year-old rape victim.

“They obviously feel that it stimulates interest in the publication and that seems to be the idea. If the paper were to publish articles that shed doubt on the Assumption of Our Lady, what would happen?  But they have no compunction to shed doubt on moral matters,” Vollmer said.

U.S. Catholic journalist and author Philip Lawler wrote that “today millions of people around the world believe that the Pontiff has changed Church teaching, has opened the question of contraception for debate, and has justified condom use in some circumstances. How did that happen?”

Lawler pinpoints the Vatican paper as the cause, saying, “Yet again, Pope Benedict has been badly served by his public-relations staff. In this case, the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano bears most of the blame for a truly disastrous gaffe.”

The Vatican had meticulously prepared for the launch of German journalist Peter Seewald’s new book-length interview with the pope. A press conference was scheduled for this morning and selected experts around the world had been vetted and prepared to give knowledgeable comment to media.

But on Saturday, all those plans came to naught when the pope’s paper, three days in advance of the official launch, broke the Vatican’s own embargo and published a selected excerpt - from the short section dealing with the Pope’s comments on condom use in Africa last March. Many are saying the “gaffe” was deliberately calculated to create the current global media feeding frenzy.

Headlines exploded into cyberspace through the weekend claiming that Pope Benedict XVI has “changed” Catholic teaching, either on the use of condoms in AIDS prevention or more generally on contraception. Although today news stories are appearing with more nuanced and contextualized claims, the media continues to report that the pope has opened the door for debate on the use of condoms in AIDS prevention. International organizations such as the World Health Organization, which have long promoted condom use for AIDS prevention, are congratulating Benedict on his “new” stand.

A prominent theme among Vatican-watchers in the last few years has been the role played by the Vatican communications offices in the string of media outbursts over the pope’s various comments, speeches and acts such as the lifting of the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying British traditionalist bishop. Some are now asking if the Vatican can be trusted competently to follow the accepted rules of journalistic ethics.

At the press conference this morning, officials declined to answer a pointed question from Frank Rocca, Vatican correspondent for Religion News Service and a mainstream journalist with the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Time and the Boston Globe. Rocca asked whether L’Osservatore Romano’s publication of the excerpts on Saturday “without informing the Sala Stampa [Holy See Press Office]” was an indication for the need for “better coordination” by the Vatican’s communications office.

Italian journalists have been especially blunt, with Paolo Rodari of Il Foglio, calling this weekend’s affair a “debacle.”

Veteran Italian journalist, Vatican expert and author of the 1987 interview book, The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, said that L’Osservatore Romano had “not even met the minimum requirements of prudence” in its decision to publish just the one small section on condoms that would ensure the media uproar that followed.

“Yet another failure of communication leads us to note once again that the Pope is not helped at all by those in the Vatican who should help.”

Lawler said that the action by L’Osservatore Romano has completely undermined the Vatican’s own plans to promote the book.

After this weekend’s consistory in which the Church welcomed 24 new cardinals, Lawler said, “the launch of Light of the World should have been another joyful occasion.”

“With appropriate planning, the publisher was poised to introduce the Pope’s book with a major publicity campaign. Now that publicity-which might have offered an accurate and favorable portrayal of the Pope’s book-will be nearly lost in the deluge of misinformation currently sweeping across the world.”

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Advertisement
Featured Image
Drew Belsky

,

2016 candidates react to the Supreme Court’s marriage decision

Drew Belsky
By Drew Belsky

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Five days after the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision mandating the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples, most of the 2016 presidential candidates have made their opinions on the issue known.

While all of the Democrats currently in the race aggressively supported the ruling, the Republicans' reactions to the Supreme Court's marriage ruling have been more varied.

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, who is expected to announce his candidacy soon, criticized the Obergefell decision, calling it "a grave mistake." Walker suggested that "the only alternative" to Friday's decision is "to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage."

Texas senator Ted Cruz has doubled down on Walker's call for a constitutional amendment. Not only is Cruz seeking an amendment to protect states' right to define marriage, but he also hopes to amend the Constitution to demand "periodic judicial retention elections" for Supreme Court justices – namely, Cruz said, for those who "overstep their bounds [and] violate the Constitution."

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush shied away from a constitutional marriage amendment. "Guided by my faith," Bush said in a statement, "I believe in traditional marriage." However, "in a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate."

Florida senator Marco Rubio agreed with Bush, exhorting Republicans to "look ahead" and concentrate on the nomination process for new judges. Likewise with Ohio governor John Kasich, who said on Face the Nation that "it's time to move on" and "take a deep breath."

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina concurred. While "I do not agree that the Court can or should redefine marriage," Fiorina said, "[m]oving forward...all of our effort should be focused on protecting the religious liberties and freedom of conscience."

South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham forthrightly condemned a constitutional marriage amendment as "a divisive effort that would be doomed to fail." Graham told NBC News, "I would not engage in the Constitutional amendment process as a party going into 2016. Accept the Court's ruling. Fight for the religious liberties of every American."

Libertarian-leaning Kentucky Senator Rand Paul wrote in Time Magazine that the federal government should remove itself completely from the marriage issue. "Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not Washington, D.C.," Paul wrote.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal "strongly disagree[s]" with the Obergefell ruling, but he admitted on Sunday that his state would ultimately comply with the Supreme Court's decision. "We do not have a choice."

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie went one step farther. While he "agree[s] with Chief Justice John Roberts" that "this is something that should be decided by the people, and not ... five lawyers," the governor admitted that "those five lawyers get to impose it under our system, and so our job is going to be to support the law of the land[.]"

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum foresees a widespread silencing of those who dissent from the Supreme Court's interpretation of marriage. "There's no slippery slope here," Santorum told the Family Research Council Friday; "religious liberty is under assault today – not going to be, it is – and it's going to be even more so ... with this decision."

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee expressed similar sentiments, excoriating the Supreme Court for flouting millions of Americans who voted to affirm "the laws of nature." Huckabee said on Friday, "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."

On the other end of the spectrum, former Democratic Maryland governor and Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley contended that it is homosexuals, not religious objectors to the Obergefell decision, who need more protections from the state.

Calling the ruling a "major step forward," O'Malley proceeded to demand passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that criminalizes "discrimination" based on an "individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity." Opponents worry it would force religious employers to hire homosexuals and transgender people.

Passing ENDA, O'Malley said, would help "more fully realize the vision of an open, respectful, and inclusive nation that Friday's decision aspires us [sic] to be."

Advertisement
Featured Image
Drew Belsky

,

Obama Department of Justice to Virginia school: Let girl use boys’ bathrooms

Drew Belsky
By Drew Belsky

July 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - The Obama administration's Department of Justice (DoJ) filed a "statement of interest" Monday in support of a Virginia high school sophomore who is seeking to use bathrooms designated for members of the opposite sex.

In June 2015, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against the Gloucester County School Board on behalf of 15-year-old Gavin Grimm, who is biologically female but wants to use male bathrooms and locker rooms.

Grimm claimed that she had used such facilities without incident for seven weeks until December 2014, when the school board enacted a policy requiring "transgender" students to use private restrooms.

Grimm testified in early 2015 that "[n]ow that the board has passed this policy, school no longer feels as safe and welcoming as it did before[.] ... Being singled out is a glaring reminder of my differences and causes me significant discomfort every time I have to use the restroom."

The Obama administration declared in May 2014 that sex discrimination under Title IX applies to those who identify as "transgender."  The Department of Education followed up last December by ordering federally funded schools to classify students based on "gender identity" rather than biological sex.

Regardless, Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jeremy Tedesco told LifeSiteNews in June of this year that Grimm's and the ACLU's discrimination claims would not hold water.  Citing a district court case in Pennsylvania, Tedesco noted (emphasis in original) that "[t]he Court ... highlighted that Title IX's implementing regulations state that schools do not violate Title IX when they 'provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex.'"

Title IX, part of the U.S. Education Amendments of 1972, is a statute that "prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity."

"Every court to consider this issue has held that single-sex restrooms and locker room facilities are permitted under Title IX," Tedesco concluded.

Now, according to the DoJ's "statement of interest" in support of Grimm, filed this week, "[t]he United States has a significant interest in ensuring that all students, including transgender students, have the opportunity to learn in an environment free of sex discrimination and that the proper legal standards are applied to claims under Title IX" (p. 2, all citations omitted).  Per the DoJ, Grimm "is likely to succeed on the merits" of her Title IX claim, and "it is in the public interest to allow [Grimm] ... to use the male restrooms at Gloucester High School."

Regarding the Pennsylvania case mentioned by Tedesco, the DoJ claims that "[t]he district court's reasoning in that case was faulty and should not be followed."

One Gloucester County School Board member who voted against the December bathroom policy fretted that "federal dollars are at stake." Her concern was well-founded: five months later, the Obama administration threatened to deny Virginia's Fairfax County School Board $42 million in federal funding if the board refused to change its own bathroom protocols.  The Fairfax board ruled in May – over the strenuous objections of parents in attendance – that "transgender" students could use facilities in accordance with their "gender identity."

"Although certain parents and community members may object to students sharing a common use restroom with transgender students," the DoJ declared in its brief for Grimm, "any recognition of this discomfort as a basis for discriminating would undermine the public interest."

Advertisement
Featured Image
"There are absolutely no grounds for considering unions between two persons of the same sex to be in any way similar to God’s plan for marriage and the family," said Bishop Strickland.
Lisa Bourne

,

Bishop to all mass-goers: Catholics have ‘duty’ to ‘emphatically oppose’ marriage ruling

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

July 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – All mass-goers this weekend in the Diocese of Tyler, Texas will hear a clear reminder from their bishop about what marriage is, regardless of last Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision.

“Let me unambiguously state at the outset that this extremely unfortunate decision by our government is unjust and immoral, and it is our duty to clearly and emphatically oppose it,” Bishop Joseph Strickland wrote in a statement that will be read after Sunday’s Gospel throughout the diocese.

“In spite of the decision by the Supreme Court, there are absolutely no grounds for considering unions between two persons of the same sex to be in any way similar to God’s plan for marriage and the family.” 

“Regardless of this decision,” the bishop said, “what God has revealed and what the Church therefore holds to be true about marriage has not changed and is unchangeable.”

Bishop Strickland explains in his letter that marriage was created by God and passed down through history via the Church.

“Marriage is not just a relationship between human beings that is based on emotions and feelings,” he said. “Rather, our Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Traditions tell us that God established true marriage with its own special nature and purpose, namely the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children.”

Bishop Strickland also reminded the faithful that unjust discrimination against individuals with homosexual tendencies is to be avoided, and that they must be treated with loving kindness and respect based on their dignity as human persons.

He also said that while Christ rejects no one, he calls all people to be converted from sinful inclinations.

“Nevertheless,” the bishop stated, “our continued commitment to the pastoral care of homosexual persons cannot and will not lead in any way to the condoning of homosexual behavior or our acceptance of the legal recognition of same-sex unions.”

In his message Bishop Strickland also cautioned against compromising on the Church’s teaching on sexual morality in situations where loved ones suffer from same-sex attraction.

“While some of us may have family members who have same-sex attraction,” he said, “this decision to require the legal recognition of so-called marriage between homosexual persons should in no way lead us to believe that the living out of this orientation or the solemnizing of relationships between two persons of the same sex is a morally acceptable option.”

The bishop plans to decree that no clergy member or of employee of the Tyler diocese may take part in solemnizing or consecrating same-sex “marriages,” and likewise no diocesan property, facility or any location designated for Catholic worship may be used for a same-sex “marriage.”

Bishop Strickland said it was his responsibility as a shepherd of the Church to act, and he called for prayer for the country to come to a greater understanding marriage as revealed by God. He said as well that it was necessary to faithfully oppose the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law. 

“We know that unjust laws and other measures contrary to the moral order are not binding in conscience” Bishop Strickland stated, “thus we must now exercise our right to conscientious objection against this interpretation of our law which is contrary to the common good and the true understanding of marriage.”

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook