Nevertheless, the sentence should be removed from the article. It has two problems: first, the passive voice robs it of any meaningful contribution: it doesn't tell us anything you don't state more clearly later. Second, the use of the word "always" overstates your point. The paragraph you mention begins, "In 2009 while traveling to Africa...." So which is it? "In 2009", or "always"?
"the source of my article ... was a Yahoo news story".
Your headline, "Pope says that condoms can be used in certain cases", certainly did not come from Yahoo!. And forgive me, but what you're describing is simply lazy. All you've reported was some other reporter's interpretation of what Benedict said.
Here are Benedict's actual words:
"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.... She [the Catholic Church] of course does not regard it [condom use] as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."
Note that nowhere in that statement does Benedict use words such as "permission" or "justification" with respect to condom usage. The gist of his words, in fact, should be pretty clear: insofar as the prostitute is attempting to assume some moral responsibility vis-a-vis HIV, he is to be lauded. It is not the use of the condom, but the demonstration of moral awareness, which Benedict is applauding.
Look, I understand that we all lead busy lives. But really, Benedict's actual statement is not exactly hard to find; googling and reading it took me less than two minutes. Surely an adequate price to pay in the name of accuracy in media.
Comment Reply
Nevertheless, the sentence should be removed from the article. It has two problems: first, the passive voice robs it of any meaningful contribution: it doesn't tell us anything you don't state more clearly later. Second, the use of the word "always" overstates your point. The paragraph you mention begins, "In 2009 while traveling to Africa...." So which is it? "In 2009", or "always"?
"the source of my article ... was a Yahoo news story".
Your headline, "Pope says that condoms can be used in certain cases", certainly did not come from Yahoo!. And forgive me, but what you're describing is simply lazy. All you've reported was some other reporter's interpretation of what Benedict said.
Here are Benedict's actual words:
"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.... She [the Catholic Church] of course does not regard it [condom use] as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."
Note that nowhere in that statement does Benedict use words such as "permission" or "justification" with respect to condom usage. The gist of his words, in fact, should be pretty clear: insofar as the prostitute is attempting to assume some moral responsibility vis-a-vis HIV, he is to be lauded. It is not the use of the condom, but the demonstration of moral awareness, which Benedict is applauding.
Look, I understand that we all lead busy lives. But really, Benedict's actual statement is not exactly hard to find; googling and reading it took me less than two minutes. Surely an adequate price to pay in the name of accuracy in media.
November 25, 2010 - 11:10pmThis Comment
Reply