"This is not an official newspaper."

The Guardian takes a look "behind the scenes" of L'Osservatore Romano, which is often referred to as "the Vatican's newspaper" or "the Pope's newspaper"—or simply "The Vatican," as in the recent headline, "Latest Harry Potter film wins Vatican approval":

Newspapers around the world may be suffering, but at least one very small one is making a big impression. L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican daily paper, sells only 12,000 copies. Even taking account of its six weekly and one monthly edition in languages other than Italian, the total circulation is less than 100,000.

<snip>

The new editor has freed his contributors to write about a much wider range of topics, and allowed them to express views that are not necessarily those of the Vatican, let alone Benedict XVI, but which catch the attention of outsiders all the same. (When Britain's ambassador to the Holy See, Francis Campbell, suggested to Vian that the prime minister might write a piece for the paper ahead of his visit to see the pope, he leapt at the idea, even though nothing like it had been done since L'Osservatore was founded in 1861.)

Much as the editor welcomes the publicity, however, he says that a lot of it is generated by a fundamental misunderstanding. "This is not an official newspaper." Referring to another recent article that made waves, he explains: "When we publish an article on Michael Jackson and say that he was an important phenomenon, that does not mean the pope is giving him his blessing."

Some readers, though, would argue it does – or, at least, that it should. In its former, dryer guise, if L'Osservatore liked or hated or took something into consideration, then it was a fair bet his holiness did too. And now? Vian is almost impossible to pin down. The paper may not be "official", but he concedes that it "represents an authoritative point of view". L'Osservatore is a "newspaper of its environment that is conditioned by that environment".

Hmmmm...alright. I'm glad that has been clarified. Or "clarified". It makes me think of the saying (original source unknown, at least to me): "I fully realize that I have not succeeded in answering all of your questions . . . indeed; I feel that I have not answered any of them completely.The answers I have found only serve to raise a whole new set of questions, which only lead to more problems--some of which we weren't aware were problems. To sum it all up . . . in some ways I feel we are as confused as ever, but I believe we are confused on a higher level and about more important things."

Comments

[Ed S]

If the new editor, Vian, sees L'Osservatore as a "newspaper of its environment that is conditioned by that environment" and he panders to it (as he seems to be doing), but concedes that L'Osservatore also "represents an authoritative point of view" of the Vatican, the Pope, and the Church then he is on a very slippery slope of (you name it): denigration, defamation, calumny, slander, and even derogation.

The world needs to know that the "new" L'Osservatore is not just unofficial but worse, a pretender, a fake capable of causing significant harm.

[Ed Peters]

If L'OR weren't the pope's paper, it would not last a week. Period.

[David Deavel]

Ah, good, the New York Times-ecclesiastical edition. We all needed that.

[Mary]

I would like all GOOD Catholic print and electronic news orginizations to STOP giving this rag ANY time/space. Let us not be a party to leading others astray, to indulging people with bad ideas, such as Vain.