AmericanPapist Comments
I think you are absolutely correct in the comparison to breaking the confessional seal. So why did YOU publish it?
Thomas,
Nice job covering this story but I really think you should not have published the letter. It is one thing to report on how outrageous it is—but it is another to commit the same crime.
Even CNN removed it from their website, last I checked.
How politically jaded would I be to suggest that the note being 'stolen' and published was a PR maneuver?
Probably pretty jaded.
I'm really disappointed that this was removed, and I have to agree with other commenters that you probably shouldn't have reprinted it here.
Sam,
Probably about as jaded as I am. Also, unless someone saw it, it would be hard to prove that it was the note from the wall.
I'm cranky and cynical on mondays.
1. I simply do not beleive that anything--anything--a major candidate does during a close race for the presidency, is done without figuring in the PR value.
2. Removing notes from the WW and publishing them is at best a crass stunt.
3. There is no way that such notes enjoy the same protection as the seal of coonfession. The very nature of NOTES left in an open public place precludes it. As for republishing something like that is already on thousands of websites, the act is morally neutral, but certainly not a malum.
4. Who says the seal is not being honored, btw? The number of seal breaches in infinitisemal compared to the number of confessions, so small that only divine protection can account for it.
God bless him if he intended it to remain private. But the fact that the barricades at the WW were plastered with campaign posters makes me suspicious that this was a private journey of a man of deep, or at least growing faith. I've never been there, but it looked like it might take some time to dig out a particular note from the crevices...? I would think a good Orthodox Jew would stop someone who was going through and unfolding dozens of notes.
So I'm 50% sure it was a stunt.
Jerusalem is not for sale, Mr. Obama.
The handwritten note in the photo says "pride and despair," not "pride and deception."
Didn't they take out JP II's note and publish it?
But who is he praying to? Who really is "god"?.....politicians...remember,do anything for alittle news coverage... [[I'm not really that jaded but those shoes look really tempting!]]Don't the liturgical clowns wear them too?
JPII released a public copy, as it represented the prayer of the church, not his personally.
Perhaps I'm not as familiar with the intricacies of this custom as I should be . . . but does anybody know what normally happens to written prayer notes that pilgrims leave in the Wall?
I agree that it is certainly disrespectful for a person to swipe the Senator's note and release it to the media.
Do you think that's really his handwriting?
If so, he has much neater penmanship than any attorney I've ever known!
Really surprised you published it.
How about a response to us who have asked you why you published it?
Just curious about your reasons or justifications since your post seems to imply a sense of respect for the confidentiality. And no, I am not equating this with the seal of confession.
AmPap can speak for himself, but again, I wonder why anyone would question publishing something that is already on 10,000s of news sites, and that reflects (assuming it's true) nothing but good about the author. I see the fact that this is even an issue as evidence of how deeply the "form" of "privacy" has become talismanic in the west.
If AmPap can speak for himself, how come daddy always come to his rescue?
To reply:
Phil, I don't respond (in general) when other folks have already made the necessary points. But if my position isn't clear, let me briefly point out:
This isn't the seal. There was nothing "personal"(ly revealing) in the letter. It's been *widely* published. It doesn't embarass the author. The author had to have known this was a possibility, and can be understood to have taken that into consideration.
Also, many folks are discovering this blog today just because they are looking for someone who has discussed it - at least here they get some decent debate (as evidenced in this thread).
One can oppose the actions of the student who stole the letter without having to ignore the results of his action.
Again, this is not the seal. It's more akin to Obama giving a contribution at church and offering it for a personal intention, and that intention getting published.
and p.s. phil, it's actually a courtesy to make it clear when you are not claiming to speak for someone else. would that more of us were more careful about such things.
Sorry Thomas,
But I have to agree with other posters here. Just because it is published widely does not mean that it is appropriate or correct for it to be published. We cannot get "ought" from "is"—you should know that.
While it may not reveal anything "personal" about the author, it is still a "personal" note, in the sense that it is a private note meant to be between the author and God. It may be in the open, in the sense that it has been deposited into a crack in the wall, but it is not public. While this is not on the level of the seal of confession, a quick search into the practice of the removing the letters from the wall, which happens twice a year, is done with great care and privacy and people clearly leave notes in the wall with the knowledge that they will not be removed except by those authorized to do so, and will be kept private.
By the way, to Phil, there's absolutely no need to be rude. You were very disrespectful, which is ironic given that you are commenting on how disrespectful it is to remove and publish the note in the first place.
The actual note that John Paul II placed in the Wall is now on display in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.
Sorry. John Paul II note is at Yad Vashem.
I'm not sure if I am allowed to post websites here, but this article says it was a PR stunthttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/
News.aspx/127001 (video included)
sorry, here's the link
http://www.israelnationalnews.co...ews.aspx/
127001
Anyone ever come back to point out that the good senator released the text of his prayer to the press himself?
Remaining silent on it for a few days was good politics... Those who thought it wasn't supposed to be published were saddened for the senator as a victim... Those who read it were impressed by the content..
This was GREAT politics.
Commenting by HaloScan
