More years ago than I care to recall, a seminary colleague declared: if God had intended there to be conversation at breakfast, He never would have invented the New York Times. I confess still to being addicted.

But, happily, a friend also gave me a subscription to the Wall Street Journal -- thereby doubling my lectio saecularis. It has proved salutary.

It is fascinating to see the diverse editorial takes on the same issue. Even more fascinating is to perceive what one ignores, while the other features. Selectivity is as much editorial policy as is advocacy.

In one area I find the WSJ far superior to the NYT: the coverage of matters concerning Italy and the Vatican. Whether by ineptitude or design the old gray lady consistently trivializes.

A case in point is today's editions. In the Times we find an innocuous waste of space concerning recent Italian attempts at humor at the expense of the Pope and his secretary. By contrast, the Journal offers an extensive and serious interview with the Italian premier, Romano Prodi. (Unfortunately, available only to subscribers -- capitalism at work!)

In this, not isolated, instance, one learns from the Journal; while the Times' "humor" is only "uno scherzo:" a joke.