The Inquirer’s sin of omission (2/2)

[Continued from The Inquirer‘s sin of omission (1/2)]

by Dexter MC

BUT what about the ending paragraphs?

The Inquirer quotes the Pope:

‘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,’ the Pope says.

Notice, that the Inquirer has omitted two sentences that clearly oppose their headline (“Pope: Condom OK in AIDS fight”):

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.

Then the Inquirer followed a valid quote from an Ignatius editor with this malicious editorialized sentence: “Still, the statement was something of a milestone for the Church and a significant change for the 83-year-old Benedict.” Again, the Pope is not changing anything.

Dexter MC writes for a living. He is fascinated by social media, web trends, law, literature, and politics.

Advertisements