Hang with me for a moment.
I went hunting this past weekend. In order to be safe from being mistaken for an animal, the prey, hunters are encouraged or even required to wear a bright orange color. This wise safety measure, of course, assumes that all the other hunters in the woods are not color blind.
Now if you know in advance that all the other hunters are color blind, you have no one else to blame but your self when you end up shot.
Translation? You don’t speak French to a bunch of neanderthals and expect NOT to be clubbed.
This is what happened to the Vatican press machine this past weekend with the “Pope approves condoms” story. Actually, this is what always happens to the Vatican press machine.
Let’s face it. The press getting this story wrong is the expected outcome but yet again the Vatican press office was caught flat footed. Yes, they issued a statement that, while correct, is written in the same language of nuance that got them in trouble in the first place.
I must admit that the whole thing has me scratching my head. The question I keep coming back to is “why?” Why did the Pope try to make this VERY nuanced point when it is obvious to even the most casual observer that the media would get this wrong? Did this nuanced point about male prostitutes really have to be made? I mean, have male prostitutes sworn off condoms because the Pope says they are wrong? Why? Why this point?
I cannot help but wonder if the Pope’s inner egg-head got the better of him here. In a way, I feel like the Pope wandered into the woods on the first day of hunting season while trying to make a point detailing the different kinds of rods and cones involved in color-blindness. It is just not the time or place to be making this point.
And then the Holy See press office. Somebody over there coulda shoulda known what was contained in this interview and anticipated the blowup. The whole reason you have a press office is so that you can be ahead of these kind of stories rather than being reactive. Extending my lame hunting analogy, it seems that the press office tells all of the color blind hunters “Hey, I think I saw something move over there!” And then claims “How was I supposed to know?”
Doesn’t anybody over at the Vatican, from the Pope on down, know how this works?
Listen up!!! The press doesn’t do nuance!
When will they get this through their pointy hats?
November 22, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Pope: You have to stop this sinful way of life.
Man: I won't.
Pope: But you have AIDS. You'll infect others.
Man: I wear a condom to protect them.
Pope: If they are worth being protected from AIDS, why not other diseases, why not emotionally?
Man: Good point, they deserve better than this.
Pope: Just like you deserve better as well.
Man: …maybe.
The Pope said it might be a starting point for moral awareness. The act of putting on a condom does something to ruin the sexual act, and it's felt intrinsically.
Maybe this would awake questions of "why am I protecting myself and others during this intimate act? If they are worth protecting, are they not worth being given true love? Am I worth more than this?"
This doesn't condone condoms at all, it only says that there is some moral compass in the person choosing to use it to protect another.
November 22, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Interesting take, Pat.
I always enjoy your points of view, esp. at the Register.
November 22, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Christina,
Excellent comment. Thank you.
November 22, 2010 at 7:52 pm
The real question is: why are the Italian and English translations so different? And why are both different from the original German? Do the translators have agendas of their own? Or was it the agenda of someone in the Vatican?
More here
http://subcreators.com/blog/2010/11/21/the-pope-the-press-and-condoms-oh-my/
November 22, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Some Conservative Reactions have shown little capacity for nuance either.
November 22, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Patrick, I offer this as a long time fan of CMR. I hope that you do not think that the Pope should not speak truth, however nuanced it actually is, because the press doesn't get it. My friend, I think it is the job of those who have the talent to deal with the press take them to task (ahem, that means folks like you). This allows actual conversation to happen.
Frankly, the Pope speaks the truth, and it is lost on those who want to err on either side. It is for those who know to now help the rest. At least that is my perspective.
This very post has conversation going. The only problem I see, is the original critique of the Holy Father and the Vatican. Otherwise, I say, Bravo for taking the dolts who misinterpret to task.
November 23, 2010 at 12:06 am
Just because the press doesn't do nuance, doesn't seem to be a good reason for the Pope (or the Catholic Church generally) not to do nuance.
Nuance is why I'm a Catholic and not a blinkered fundamentalist.
Nuance is why I'm a Catholic and not a blinkered atheist.
Nuance is why I'm a Catholic and not a gutless agnostic.
Nuance is why I love Papa Benedict.
Nuance is why I love St Therese of Lisieux.
Nuance is why I love the Angelic Doctor.
Long live nuance and long live the Pope.
November 23, 2010 at 3:38 am
"And then the Creative Minority Report press office. Somebody over there coulda shoulda known what was contained in this blog post and anticipated the blowup."
November 23, 2010 at 5:29 am
Some make it sound as if the Pope accidentally ran into one of those hunters you mention, who surprised him with a long list of questions that happened to be in his pocket that day. Was there no preparation? Thomas Peters has noted the international hordes that have worked for months preparing to introduce the book. Did no one bother to read it as publishers religiously do? It's unfair this time to pick on just the Vatican press office and L'Osservatore Romano. Their frequent utter disregard for the recipients on the other end of a communication has apparently spread widely.
One notable point is that nothing to date in connection with the Pope's male prostitute example limits the gender of the prostitutes's customers. Many commenters have guessed, assumed, or otherwise intuited what the Pope should have said when he knew he was being interviewed for publication. He presumably knows that male prostitutes, depending on the individual, may have male or female clients, any of whom are subject to receiving or transmitting HIV. If preventing the spread of lethal infection can be a positive factor in assessing morality surrounding condom use, it is difficult to see how one gender can be allowed benefit but not the other. Many questions arise. There is an urgent need to invoke Patrick A.'s 3rd Commandment (11:13AM above).
November 23, 2010 at 3:05 pm
I have to say I have been a little frustrated with the so-called conservative Catholic blogs who are accusing the Holy Father of imprudence in bringing this up at all, as if he does not know what he is doing. He knows exactly what he is doing, and I think in a most fatherly way to the world, he is seeking to bring those who are engaged in such immoral acts as prostitution in lands and communities most plagued with AIDS to at least some level of responsibility for others without compromising in any way the constant teaching of the church against contraception.
As for me, I'm sticking with the Holy Father.
November 23, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Patrick,
By the comments your points have obviously all been grossly misunderstood, I'm sorry to hear that. You're absolutely right, this entire media firestorm is of the Vatican's making. The journalist interviewing Pope Benedict asked this question because of the LAST media firestorm over his AIDS and condoms comment. They had to know what his would do! No one ever said we don't want an intelligent, nuanced, Pope. We are simply saying that such an intelligent man shouldn't be this media "stupid." I mean for crying in the sink, they excerpted nuance in the Vatican newspaper! To quote Seth Meyers from SNL. REALLY? Really Vatican? The Pope makes an incredibly nuanced comment regarding a firebrand issue and your way of getting out in front of the issue is through an excerpt? Really?
November 23, 2010 at 5:31 pm
"Folks
Speaking the truth is all fine and dandy. Wouldn't have it any other way.
Always having to issue a clarifying press release 24 hours later, not so fine and dandy.
Speaking so as not to be misunderstood has its merits too folks. Gotta know your audience."
So your problem is with those voices, not the Pope's, which distort what the Pope said.
First, the title of your post is obviously misleading then. The Pope said what he said because he meant it and was speaking the truth. I would rather him say it (I know my faith better now) and trust me and other believers to defend him in public than for him not to say it fearing misunderstanding.
The fact that people can't understand him is not the Pope's fault. Media is a double-edged sword: it can help immensely in the cause of evangelization, but no matter what one says or does, the media always has the opportunity to misinterpret the information, as it did here.
Of course, the fact that some of the misinterpretation comes from media closest to the Pope is extremely unfortunate.
Still, you seem to consistently take criticism with the "PR" department of the Church. What would such a PR department do exactly? Is it their job to make the Pope and Church look good in the eyes of the world? Or to further the cause of the Church? Sometimes, I would argue, the two are irreconcilable. This was one of those cases.
They attempted to explain what the Pope said and what he meant, but simply fell short, as all men do.
November 23, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Correction: My comment at 12:29AM should refer to Dr. Edward Peters at
http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/continuing-mess-at-losservatore-romano.html, not Thomas Peters.