L'Osservatore Romano, does it speak for the Church?

[Michie]

Does this paper speak for the Catholic church?

I'm confused because I keep reading differing views from the same paper.

 

[Fish and Bread]

L'Osservatore Romano is the Vatican's official newspaper. You can find it's articles on the Vatican's website itself. It's not a teaching document, but it's considered to generally be in line with the Church's thinking, since it is owned and operated by the Church itself.

 

[Michie]

I'm reading various views from the same paper. Then I saw your post so I thought I'd ask. Didn't put it in your thread because I thought you'd think I was challenging you.

Here is a quote I read from here-

Vatican newspaper 'ignorant' of Obama's history, Catholic commentators charge




Washington D.C., May 21, 2009 / 11:40 am (CNA).-

Two Catholic commentators are lamenting the “sorry ignorance of recent American history” displayed by L'Osservatore Romano—the newspaper published by the Vatican—in its favorable reaction to President Obama's recent commencement speech at Notre Dame. However, they caution, readers should not make the mistake of thinking that the newspaper speaks for the Catholic Church.

It was always my impression that this was a Vatican approved paper.

I'm trying to find out what the official stance is on the content of the paper. Especially when the content contradicts.

 

[colleen]

Does this paper speak for the Catholic church?

I'm confused because I keep reading differing views from the same paper.

Here is a quote from Wiki:
"L'Osservatore Romano and the Magisterium

A common error for journalists and theologians is to interpret the texts of L'Osservatore Romano as if they were of official value for the Magisterium. In fact, they cannot have such a value, except if a high-ranking bishop is writing a more solemn text, and not a mere theological opinion. Otherwise, L'Osservatore does not have the ability to write or approve encyclicals and papal allocutions.
For instance, a 2008 article expressed the wish that the debate on brain death be re-opened because of new developments in the medical world. An official spokesman said that the article presented a personal opinion of the author and "did not reflect a change in the Catholic Church's position"."



The Vatican newspaper does not have authority to teach Catholics. Rather it reports on what is going on, and sometimes has articles from bishops and others that have the authority attributed to them that it would anywhere else (for example an encyclical reprinted in the newspaper). In no way shape or form should normal articles from the newspaper be considered the last word or even the official word of the Vatican. And, it is certainly not infallible.

 

[Michie]

Here is a quote from Wiki:
"L'Osservatore Romano and the Magisterium

A common error for journalists and theologians is to interpret the texts of L'Osservatore Romano as if they were of official value for the Magisterium. In fact, they cannot have such a value, except if a high-ranking bishop is writing a more solemn text, and not a mere theological opinion. Otherwise, L'Osservatore does not have the ability to write or approve encyclicals and papal allocutions.
For instance, a 2008 article expressed the wish that the debate on brain death be re-opened because of new developments in the medical world. An official spokesman said that the article presented a personal opinion of the author and "did not reflect a change in the Catholic Church's position"."



The Vatican newspaper does not have authority to teach Catholics. Rather it reports on what is going on, and sometimes has articles from bishops and others that have the authority attributed to them that it would anywhere else (for example an encyclical reprinted in the newspaper). In no way shape or form should normal articles from the newspaper be considered the last word or even the official word of the Vatican. And, it is certainly not infallible.

Thanks Colleen. That clears things up.

I was thinking about subscribing at one time but it's expensive. I'm glad I didn't now. I've been reading a lot of conflicting content.

 

[Fish and Bread]

It was always my impression that this was a Vatican approved paper.

I'm trying to find out what the official stance is on the content of the paper. Especially when the content contradicts.

Although the newspaper is a newspaper and not an official teaching document, it does tend to reflect the mind of the Church, because it is owned and operated by the Church, and is published within the walls of the Vatican. It doesn't require assent in a strict religious sense by any means, but the fact that some conservative commentators are now railing against it should, in my view, be a strong indicator about where their ideology lays relative to Rome.

My hope is that seeing this will be an eye-opening moment for a lot of people who blindly accept the propaganda of privately owned conservative publications and websites that claim to be Catholic as being accurate reflections of Catholicism. They have their own agenda. The Vatican newspaper, on the other hand, does not -- it's the Church's newspaper, and it's only agenda is to report the news from the perspective of the Church. So, to see these conservative sites bashing the Vatican newspaper really says more about them than it does the Vatican newspaper.

 

[Globalnomad]

Certainly not infallible.... but hopefully not a "bad Catholic" liberal dissenter newspaper. So I do hope that we poor little anonymous OBOBers who, having dared to express the same views, are labelled bad Catholics, liberals and dissenters, will get a little respite....

 

[colleen]

Fish, I don't blindly accept any propaganda. I merely follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Fish, I don't blindly accept any propaganda. I merely follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I didn't accuse you of anything.

 

[colleen]

Certainly not infallible.... but hopefully not a "bad Catholic" liberal dissenter newspaper.

I hope that more people would read all journalism with a critical eye. Some articles in so called dissenter magazines can actually be very true to church teachings, and some articles from so called orthodox papers can misrepresent the teachings of the church. None of them are infallible, and we really need to read them critically with the eyes of the church. If the article doesn't seem to line up with the teachings of the church than it probably isn't something we should accept with open arms no matter what group publishes it.

 

[Globalnomad]

I haven't said you should accept it. I only hope that everyone respects the Osservatore Romano enough not to throw at it the unpleasant accusations that have been thrown at the rest of us. And then vice-versa, that we could enjoy a little more respect for our views, even if people disagree.

 

[colleen]

I haven't said you should accept it. I only hope that everyone respects the Osservatore Romano enough not to throw at it the unpleasant accusations that have been thrown at the rest of us. And then vice-versa, that we could enjoy a little more respect for our views, even if people disagree.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that was what you were saying. I just meant that we should look at all journalism with a critical eye.

 

[colleen]

I didn't accuse you of anything.

Glad you weren't, but you were accusing some on here of blatantly accepting propaganda. And, since you know how it hurts to be accused of things you don't feel you are/or are doing on obob I would hope you would be less likely to do the same to others. But, I'm also on a bit of a personal battle on here for all of us to start looking at each other as people. Maybe, if we aren't so quick to label each other as republicans/democrats and conservatives/liberals, especially when so many don't even declare themselves in the box people put them in, we could have some real conversations that bring us all closer to Christ. I'm Catholic, and that's really the only box I want anyone sticking me in. I try to offer the same respect to others around here.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Glad you weren't, but you were accusing some on here of blatantly accepting propaganda.

Some people here do. It isn't up to me to decide which ones, and I am not making a such a declaration anyhow. I am just urging everyone to look into their hearts and consider that there may in fact be a difference between what a Republican-owned and operated website teaches Catholicism is, and what Catholicism truly is.

 

[colleen]

Some people here do.

Unless, you can see in someone's mind or they told you that they blindly accept anything such and such website says you really can't say that. Not to mention that you have made accusations that certain sites are republican owned and operated when the site is not. Nevermind, Fish, you clearly want to keep putting certain people on here in boxes. But, frankily if you are going to do it yourself you shouldn't get so bent out of shape when people do it to you.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Not to mention that you have made accusations that certain sites are republican owned and operated when the site is not.

Deal W. Hudson is the director of insidecatholic.com, and used to publish Crisis magazine. He was also an employee of the Bush Presidential campaigns in both 2000 and 2004. All of these are easily verifiable facts that people can look at for themselves if they have a few minutes and want to do a Google search. No one has to take my word for it.

Other sites are out there that don't have conflicts of interest that are so obvious and blantant, but nevertheless do present a very political point of view. Catholic Answers is so political that it the division of it that does the voting guides had to register as a partisan political organization for taxes purposes -- that's also public record.

Now, someone can probably find this site or that site that is free of such ties, at least publicly so, though we don't know who is financially backing all of these places, but the fact is that a lot of the media out there that represents themselves as just "orthodox Catholic" is actually "Republican Catholic", emphasis on the Republican.

I will say that there are good independent publications out there, though, like the National Catholic Reporter, and the America the Magazine.

 

[isshinwhat]

The Devil wins a great victory when we all stay divided and blame our differences on political affiliation. Lord have mercy, and please, come back soon.

 

[isshinwhat]

Deal W. Hudson is the director of insidecatholic.com, and used to publish Crisis magazine. He was also an employee of the Bush Presidential campaigns in both 2000 and 2004. All of these are easily verifiable facts that people can look at for themselves if they have a few minutes and want to do a Google search. No one has to take my word for it.

Other sites are out there that don't have conflicts of interest that are so obvious and blantant, but nevertheless do present a very political point of view. Catholic Answers is so political that it the division of it that does the voting guides had to register as a partisan political organization for taxes purposes -- that's also public record.

Now, someone can probably find this site or that site that is free of such ties, at least publicly so, though we don't know who is financially backing all of these places, but the fact is that a lot of the media out there that represents themselves as just "orthodox Catholic" is actually "Republican Catholic", emphasis on the Republican.

I will say that there are good independent publications out there, though, like the National Catholic Reporter, and the America the Magazine.

Before I spend time responding to this statement, I need to know, is that a serious claim or not?

 

[Michie]

Fish, I don't blindly accept any propaganda. I merely follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Exactly. Thats what I always say. Not that it helps much at times.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Before I spend time responding to this statement, I need to know, is that a serious claim or not?

Well, America the Magazine is a Jesuit publication. So, it's independent of everyone except the Jesuits.

The National Catholic Reporter is it's own deal to the best of my knowledge. It was founded in 1964 and considers itself independent. It's won the highest award for journalism from the Catholic Press Association nine years running. Does it lean a bit to the left? Sure, I won't argue with you there, but it does have a credibility that some of these right-wing websites and papers tend to lack.

My only statement really was that they were good, though, which is a pretty subjective thing, hard to really prove or disprove.