S
smith500
Guest
When quoting someone, what are the ethical guidelines of making sure the reader is not mislead by taking a quote of context? There would seem to be a special obligation to give the reader the most accurate understanding when writing for a Catholic magazine as a Jesuit professor of ethics from a Catholic university quoting the pope.
Here is such an example from Vincent Genovesi, S.J. who teaches ethics in the Department of Theology at Saint Joseph’s University quoting Pope Benedict XVI in an article in Amerca Magazine:
"There is much said about doing “works of charity,” but Pope Benedict XVI’s words in his first encyclical, God Is Love (No. 26), warrant consideration:
These ideas echo earlier church teachings…"
(end of excerpt from America Magazine)
Given the presentation, I believe any reasonable person would think that the selected excerpt from God is Love is something that Pope Benedict XVI teaches. Do you agree?
Here is the same excerpt from God is Love in context with the parts left out in bold:
Since the nineteenth century, an objection has been raised to the Church’s charitable activity, subsequently developed with particular insistence by Marxism: the poor, it is claimed, do not need charity but justice. Works of charity—almsgiving—are in effect a way for the rich to shirk their obligation to work for justice and a means of soothing their consciences, while preserving their own status and robbing the poor of their rights. Instead of contributing through individual works of charity to maintaining the status quo, we need to build a just social order in which all receive their share of the world’s goods and no longer have to depend on charity. There is admittedly some truth to this argument, but also much that is mistaken. (underlines mine)
When read in context you learn the the excerpt taken by Professor Genovisi is not something the Pope agrees with but the Pope’s representation of what Marxism believes of which the Pope thinks much is mistaken.
If you are grasping for straws, you could argue it was o.k. because the Pope also said “there is admittedly some truth to the argument.” It is also weak to argue that a college professor of ethics made a mistake that the academically decorated editors of America Magazine did not catch. In my humble opinion, it appears that the words were intentionally taken out of context so the writer could use the authority of the Pope to strengthen his argument.
What do you think? What is the standard of journalistic ethics?
americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11039&o=33117
sju.edu/academics/cas/theology/faculty/vgenovesi.html
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
Here is such an example from Vincent Genovesi, S.J. who teaches ethics in the Department of Theology at Saint Joseph’s University quoting Pope Benedict XVI in an article in Amerca Magazine:
"There is much said about doing “works of charity,” but Pope Benedict XVI’s words in his first encyclical, God Is Love (No. 26), warrant consideration:
Works of charity…are in effect a way for the rich to shirk their obligation to work for justice and [are] a means of soothing their consciences while preserving their own status and robbing the poor of their rights. Instead of contributing through individual works of charity to maintaining the status quo, we need to build a just social order in which all receive their share of the world’s goods and no longer have to depend on charity
.These ideas echo earlier church teachings…"
(end of excerpt from America Magazine)
Given the presentation, I believe any reasonable person would think that the selected excerpt from God is Love is something that Pope Benedict XVI teaches. Do you agree?
Here is the same excerpt from God is Love in context with the parts left out in bold:
Since the nineteenth century, an objection has been raised to the Church’s charitable activity, subsequently developed with particular insistence by Marxism: the poor, it is claimed, do not need charity but justice. Works of charity—almsgiving—are in effect a way for the rich to shirk their obligation to work for justice and a means of soothing their consciences, while preserving their own status and robbing the poor of their rights. Instead of contributing through individual works of charity to maintaining the status quo, we need to build a just social order in which all receive their share of the world’s goods and no longer have to depend on charity. There is admittedly some truth to this argument, but also much that is mistaken. (underlines mine)
When read in context you learn the the excerpt taken by Professor Genovisi is not something the Pope agrees with but the Pope’s representation of what Marxism believes of which the Pope thinks much is mistaken.
If you are grasping for straws, you could argue it was o.k. because the Pope also said “there is admittedly some truth to the argument.” It is also weak to argue that a college professor of ethics made a mistake that the academically decorated editors of America Magazine did not catch. In my humble opinion, it appears that the words were intentionally taken out of context so the writer could use the authority of the Pope to strengthen his argument.
What do you think? What is the standard of journalistic ethics?
americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11039&o=33117
sju.edu/academics/cas/theology/faculty/vgenovesi.html
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html