"Group Says Pope Will Weigh Delay of Pius's Beatification" By Rachel Donadio

This article was fairly short and straightforward. It talked about the possibility that the beatification of Pius XII will be delayed. For those who don't know what that means, "beatification" is one of the steps toward being canonized a saint in the Catholic Church. A Jewish group has asked Pope Benedict XVI to open and review the archives of Pius' papacy before he is beatified because they believe he did not do enough to stop the deportation of Jews during WWII. Pope Benedict XVI is considering their request.

First of all, I felt this article left a lot unexplained. There was quite a bit of jargon present in the article. It didn't explain what beatification is, and I would venture to guess most people don't even know what that means. Without knowing the importance of beatification, readers can't understand that it's a big deal the pope is considering delaying the process.

Also, the reporter was a big fan of partial quotes. While I think it is definitely okay to use them, it eventually started to feel kind of awkward because there were only two full quotes and many more partial ones. It just seemed unnecessary to have a partial quote in almost every paragraph. While some were colorful, others could have been taken out, and the writer could have used that as an opportunity to explain what the partial quotes would have meant. For example, there are two partial quotes that were said by a Vatican official, "technical challenges" and "for at least another five years," that I did not really understand. I obviously know what the second quote means, but I don't understand the first. I guess it may be the point that the quote itself was unclear, but there are no comments from anyone saying that waiting five years is ridiculous. Are the technical challenges that prevent the cataloging of materials from Pius' papacy for five years hurting the efforts of the Jewish group or those pushing for the beatification?

The article also quoted The Associated Press. I thought the quoting of other news sources was generally frowned upon in journalism. The reporter should have gotten that information for herself rather than just taking it from the other source.

The article also contained some editorializing. The reporter makes the assertion that "many consider Benedict's delay in signing the decree indicative of internal and external diplomatic considerations" without supporting this claim. She doesn't attribute it to anyone. She also said at the end of the article that Father Lombardi "made a rare, forceful statement." I felt this was her opinion, and it was unnecessary in the story.

Overall, this article got the main point across, but I felt it could have actually explained so much more.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/world/europe/31pius.html?_r=1&oref=slogin