Lots of discussion about this on the alt/r Catholic blogosphere on this.
But the AP now reports: Whoops.
The Vatican admitted to The Associated Press on Wednesday that it blurred the two final lines of the first page where Benedict begins to explain that he didn’t actually read the books in question...
The missing content significantly altered the meaning of the quotes the Vatican chose to highlight, which were widely picked up by the media....
what caught them up was they didn't know how to photoshop the letter properly, so got caught:
Most independent news media, including The Associated Press, follow strict standards that forbid digital manipulation of photos.
headsup FatherH, who summarizes the original letter thus:
it provides agreeable evidence that Ratzinger's old, deft, feline wit has not deserted the dear old man.
Briefly summarised by me, his Letter says (and I've put into square brackets the section the spin-doctors didn't want you to see):
"Thank you for inviting me to write a page about the little books you sent me. I think they are splendid little books about my splendid successor. [Sadly, however, I haven't read them and I don't intend to do so. And I never comment on books I haven't read, so I won't be sending you a page.]"----
update: It's even worse than censoring a single paragraph.
more Father Z notes:
Just as a side note, I would like to mention my surprise at the fact that the authors also include Professor Hünermann, who during my pontificate put himself in the spotlight by heading anti-papal initiatives. He participated to a significant extent in the promulgation of the “Kölner Erklärung,” which, in relation to the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor,” attacked in a virulent manner the magisterial authority of the pope especially on questions of moral theology. The Europäische Theologengesellschaft, which he founded, also was initially designed by him as an organization in opposition to the papal magisterium. Afterward, the ecclesial sentiment of many theologians blocked this tendency, making that organization a normal instrument of encounter among theologians.
I am certain that you will have understanding for my declination, and I cordially greet you.
----------------
David Warren on Cardinal Sarah's disccussion of Silence
Are we to be defined by our technological gadgetry, or defined in silence? Are we to be empty or full? Most came expecting to hear that, and were not disappointed.
Silence can’t be spoken with a loud voice. It is the still and small one, of which Sarah speaks.
I doubt anyone, knowing of the speaker, came expecting a pep talk. I (and perhaps several others) could not help noticing what a good pope he would make: one who doesn’t speak unless he has something necessary to say; who is not trying to surprise us. One whose comfort is in the Sacraments and Doctrine, and not in novelties; a spokesman for Jesus Christ, and for no other cause. A man whose voice echoes twenty centuries. Even through the noise of the contemporary world, serious people are drawn to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment