I have often wondered: Which comes first in the writing process in America’s most powerful newsroom, the copy that goes in the International Herald Tribune over in Europe or the copy that goes into the New York Times itself?
Here is why I ask. First, click here to read the New York Times version of a major story out of Rome from reporter Ian “Crow’s Ear” Fisher. (OK, that’s a cheap shot, but hang in there with me.) The headline says, “Ideals Collide as Vatican Rethinks Condom Ban,” and the dateline says May 1.
Now click here to read the International Herald Tribune version of the same story, with a May 2 dateline and this headline: “The Vatican wrestles with a fraught topic.”
Do you see a major difference right up front? How about you GetReligion readers who are members of ancient, liturgical churches or those of you who have studied church history?
Now, there are all kinds of interesting issues to discuss in these two versions of the same story, but let’s just stick with the lead. First there is that version in the Times, which it appears was written first:
ROME, May 1 — Even at the Vatican, not all sacred beliefs are absolute: Thou shalt not kill, but war can be just. Now, behind the quiet walls, a clash is shaping up involving two poles of near certainty: the church’s long-held ban on condoms and its advocacy of human life.
The issue is AIDS. Church officials recently confirmed that Pope Benedict XVI had requested a report on whether it might be acceptable for Catholics to use condoms in one narrow circumstance: to protect life inside a marriage when one partner is infected with H.I.V. or is sick with AIDS.
Now compare that with the first paragraph in the May 2 version, taken from the Tribune:
ROME Even at the Vatican, few things apart from the reality of God are absolute. Thou shalt not kill, but there is still just war. Now, behind the quiet Vatican walls, a clash is shaping up between two poles of near certainty: the church’s long-held ban on condom use and its more recently focused advocacy for human life from the womb to old age.
I read the Tribune version online before I saw the Times. What jumped out at me was the phrase, in the Tribune, about the Roman Catholic Church’s “recently focused advocacy for human life from the womb to old age.”
That has to be a mistake, I thought. They’ll correct it in an updated edition.
But, unless I am mistaken, this strange phrase is in the newer version of the story. Right?
First of all, I have no idea what “recently focused advocacy for human life” means. Does this mean it is a new doctrine? A doctrine that has been changing and evolving? So the ban on condoms is, according to the New York Times, older than the church’s opposition to abortion, let’s say, or euthanasia?
The problem, of course, is that the pro-life stance in Christianity — East and West — is ancient, ancient, ancient. Here is a sample from the Didache, or the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. It dates back to the first century of the church, with some changes and additions in the centuries immediately after that. But we are talking about one of the oldest and most authoritative documents in church tradition, outside the canon of Scripture.
… “You will not murder. You will not commit adultery.” You will not sodomize young boys. You will not have unlawful sex. ” You will not steal.” Do not practice magic. Do not practice sorcery. Neither murder a child by abortion, nor will you destroy what is born. You will not strongly desire your neighbor’s things. You will not make oaths. “You will not bear false testimony.” You will not say bad things. You will not remember bad things. You will not be double-minded or double-tongued, for the double-tongue is a snare of death. Your message is not to be false or empty, but being filled with practice. You should be neither greedy nor a swindler, nor hypocrite, nor malicious, nor high-minded. You will not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You will not hate any people, but you will reprove some, and you will pray for some, and some you will love more than your life.
Obviously, there are lots of things in there that will offend the editorial board of the New York Times.
But don’t get me wrong. This is a big story, with Pope Benedict XVI opening up discussion of a hot topic, in the name of protecting people who have AIDS and are having sex inside the sacrament of marriage. This is a kind of “Nixon goes to China” story, with a conservative pope raising eyebrows in the world’s largest flock.
But I would trust the Times coverage of this story more if it did not include such a confusing statement right there in the lead, one that seems to fly in the face of, well, two millennia of church history.
 | Posted at 2:55 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (15) |
May 2, 2006, at 3:25 pm
Of course this statement in and of itself is a loaded statement that the Times fails to dig more into. In the Old Testament, the word for “kill” in the commandments is a unique Hebrew word that was used specifically for what we today would call first-degree, premeditated murder. Many translations use the word “murder” instead of “kill” today.
The phrasing of this sentence is either ambiguous or misleading. It makes it sound like there have been two polar opposite views in the Catholic Church—ban on condoms vs. advocacy of human life. In fact, this is a very recent dilemma. The two were hand-in-hand in the past because birth control was seen as preventing human life, thus it’s view as a sinful use.
The very real story that isn’t even mentioned but is a “ghost” is the fact that a legalistic entity is using the Law to promote certain behaviors and agendae, but the constrictiveness of those laws sometimes come into conflict. In a truly Gospel-oriented movement there are standards, but the shades of gray mean that each individual Christian has Christian freedom to make what he/she deems the best choice in that situation. In an evangelical framework (small e, not large E) the Christian individual can make the choice of whether or not to use birth control, especially if the health of a spouse is an issue. The Christian individual can also research the various methods of birth control and how they work so that the Christian can use a form of birth control that does not compromise personal beliefs. An example is using a pill that prevents the egg from being fertilized as opposed to a pill that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.
May 2, 2006, at 3:26 pm
Terry:
Thanks for this thread of yours. I used to read the Old Grey Lady religiously, but this is further evidence of what… their stupidity? ignorance? caving to PC sentiment/cant that would not offend their urban, hip, ironic readers?
I generally find Peter Steinfels and Gustav Niebuhr’s Godbeat pieces in the paper to be nuanced, thoughtful and factually one the mark. However, they don’t seem to get many bylines anymore, do they?
In turn, as a result I generally get my news from blogs such as this one.
Keep up the good work.
May 2, 2006, at 3:34 pm
Of course, the “culture of life” was never uttered until Pope John Paul II used it in 1993 and then enshrined itin Evangelium Vitae in 1995. From that sense, it is just more than a decade-old and thus “recent.”
May 2, 2006, at 4:07 pm
Michael:
You know that the JPII phrase is merely an image to describe an ancient reality in the context of a modern, media-saturated world. The culture of death image is new. The doctrines it articulates are ancient. I would hope that the people who cover the Vatican for the most influential newspaper in the world would know things like that.
May 2, 2006, at 4:14 pm
But he acknowledges in the story that they are ancient. The focus on “culture of life” is a relatively new concept in its breadth and scope and never got the attention it deserved until Pope John Paul II. In that sense, it is “recent.” I think that’s the point he’s making. That’s not inaccurate.
May 2, 2006, at 5:34 pm
Michael’s postings headline the problem the Catholic Church has with the media and the public mind. If to reach the modern mind the Church even updates its language to describe or promote 2000 year old Christian Truths suddenly these Truths become labelled as “recent,” or “Vatican dictates,” or “the teachings of JPII.” Unfortunately, you can’t win when the media has so many in it that are anti-Christian or totally ignorant of Christian and Church History.
Never, in my extensive following of the mass media have I seen the Didache referred to in the secular media, but even those with the meagerest knowledge of Church History have read it. Is it never referred to by the media because so many of them are covering a topic they are totally ignorant of or because their bigotry overwhelms their knowledge of religious history???
May 2, 2006, at 7:41 pm
I wasn’t aware the Didache was canonical.
May 2, 2006, at 7:54 pm
Actually, in a sense, the article is quite right, though I doubt this is what they had in mind … “abortion” in the early Church was thought of very differently than it is today, because we have a different biological understanding of when pregnancy occurs. Certainly in the Middle Ages (and until relatively recently), the beginning of pregnancy was reckoned from the quickening, i.e., when the baby is felt to move for the first time.
Balzac - right, the Didache isn’t canonical, but it is indicative of early Church teaching. I think tmatt’s point was that abortion and birth control have been condemned by the Church from very early on.
May 2, 2006, at 8:15 pm
Michael:
Outside the name of a foundation, where does the article reference John Paul II’s “culture of life” phrase?
May 2, 2006, at 8:32 pm
It doesn’t reference the phrase. I am just assuming that’s what Fisher meant when he said “recent.’ When he used “advocacy for human life from the womb to old age,” the first thing that leaped to my mind was PJPII comment’s about “culture of life” which is encompasses advocacy for human life … .
Fisher isn’t some stringer who stumbled onto the story. He has written extensively about the Vatican and the Pope and therefore probably deserves some assumption he chooses his words carefully. Unless they were added by an editor, I have to assume the Rome correspondent for the NYT understands Vatican politics and Catholic history and isn’t just winging it.
May 3, 2006, at 7:01 am
Michale “assumes”, because he has a background. And his “assumptions” are not necessarily accurate. Most people reading this rag will not have a background, and will undoubtedly get the impression that was intended, the RC church shifts doctrine to suit the politcal wind.
Terry, if you still find credible *anything* other than obits and sports scores in any major media reporting these days, you’re a far more charitable man than I (which, of course, is undoubtedly true).
Christ is risen!
May 3, 2006, at 8:22 am
It doesn’t??????? It may not shift docrtine,but it does shift focus on doctrine, emphasis on doctrine, and what doctrine encompasses. No need to be naive. The entire story is about a possible shift ih doctrine or a reinterpretatin of doctine to adjust to political winds. Pope John Paul II’s emphasis on the culture of life was a shift in emphasis.
May 3, 2006, at 8:45 am
Michael is perfectly illustrating the attitude of the MSM.
This action is not about saving lives and marriages. It is about, what, the favor of whom? Who will this action please? Michael?
Get real. And JPII’s Culture of Life is, again, a metaphor for applying an ancient doctrine to emerging issues.
BTW, I too would hope that the NYTs reporter at the Vatican would know something about church history. That is the point of my actual post.
May 3, 2006, at 11:24 am
It is totally absurd to say that the Church began to focus on abortion when JPII published “The Gospel of Life” in 1995. In the Western world abortion did not become the “issue” that it is today until it was legalized in many places in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In the U.S. the Catholic Church was at the forefront of efforts against legalization from the beginning, even before Roe was decided. I’m certain that the Church did the same wherever legalization occurred.
The Church also condemned early, pre-quickening abortion soon after scientists discovered in the first half of the 1800s that life begins at conception.
May 3, 2006, at 3:53 pm
I’m a Catholic, and here’s my Catholic point of view: It appears to me that there are two issues going on that are confusing the issue of what the Catholic Church may or may not be doing:
One, a statement by Cardinal Barragán, head of the Pontifical Council for Health and Pastoral Care regarding a study his council is doing, that has been taken out of context by media and which he has since clarified. Two, a statement by Cardinal Martini, a known liberal and opponent of Pope Benedict XVI, regarding not only condom use but abortion and in vitro fertilization. Put together, they have caused a storm of speculation on something about which the Church herself has not, in fact, spoken.
Personally, and if I know anything at all about Pope B16 and the Church’s already defined teaching on the subject, I’d be amazed if the Church changed her position on condom use.
Now, it is good to be aware that, as new situations emerge in the course of history, new and often complex moral issues also emerge that raise questions for pastoral practice, and the Church in these times always studies those issues in order to arrive at answers and guidelines for her people.
Unfortunately, if news leaks out about such a study about something controversial, people often start speculating that the Church is going to change her position on it. It happened in the 1960’s regarding contraception prior to the release of Humanae Vitae, which definitively banned its use. But people had gotten to such a fever pitch because of all the media around it saying the Church WOULD allow contraception, it caused a huge controversy when the document came out and lots of people were disappointed.
Today, a question has emerged about condom use as a health protection for married couples when one spouse has AIDS, in light of the fact that AIDS is spreading, not declining. As the Church has not studied this particular question in detail, drawing upon all possible scientific, theological, and moral considerations, she is doing so now, through the Pontifical Council for Health and Pastoral Care and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, both formal Vatican bodies who study and advise the Pope on such matters. Word has gotten out about it, and so once again a storm of speculation is upon us.
I’ve seen work from these bodies before, and I can tell you that they comprehensively consult top Catholic scientists, bioethicists, and moral theologians on these kinds of issues to make sure they have as complete and accurate information as possible before making any kind of recommendation at all. It’s a long, extremely detailed process in which they leave no stone unturned and work out every possible moral consideration. Since the Church has always taught that condoms are a bad idea from every angle, I’d be amazed if the findings were anything other than a detailed destruction of every argument in favor of their use.
But I’m not the Church and I don’t speak with the mind of the Church, so I’d wait and let the Church, whom I trust, make up Her own mind, and not get caught up in media speculation.