Modernists want to use modern media to break the authority of the Church in matters of Faith and morals
For centuries, the Catholic Church has wrestled with the public – and with the notion that truth could exist beyond its walls. Is the Catholic Church, with Leo XIV, facing a turning point in its relationship with the modern world?
The Church's relationship with the public and the free press is strained. The cause is the conflict between religious claims to truth and modern notions of (press) freedom. How does Pope Leo XIV position himself?
From the very beginning, the Church had to communicate its message. Communications scholar Michael Schmolke put it this way: "'Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' could just as well have been 'extra ecclesiam nulla communicatio.'" Thus, for a long time, the Church determined what could be published. In 1487, Innocent VIII laid the foundation for ecclesiastical communication control with "Contra impressores librorum reprobatorum."
Freedom of the press? No thanks!
With the Reformation, the Church finally lost its media monopoly. The printing press enabled a limitless flow of information. The Church responded with censorship. In the 19th century, the Enlightenment and the Revolution escalated the situation. In Mirari vos (1832), Gregory XVI (1830–1846) railed against freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which he viewed as highly pernicious, never-endingly condemnable, and abhorrent. For him, freedom could only exist within the limits set by the Church.
Pius IX (1846–1878) also saw the loss of the Papal States as a consequence of a free press. In Quanta cura (1864) and the Syllabus Errorum, he sharply condemned freedom of the press. Leo XIII (1878–1903) also expressed skepticism. In Libertas praestantissimum (1888), he declared that there could be no freedom of the press that deviated from the authoritatively dictated truth. At the same time, he discovered media for the church's mission, but only in strict subordination. In Longinqua (1895), Leo is even clearer: journalists should not dare to criticize episcopal decisions or even bishops. Instead, respect and subservience are demanded. Leo XIII distinguished between "good" (Catholic) and "bad" (non-Catholic) press. "The freedom of the Catholic press is the freedom to be Catholic," Giselbert Deussen stated in 1973 in his still-relevant and worthwhile Ethics of Mass Communication.
Good Press vs. Bad Press
Pius X (1903–1914) was also skeptical of journalistic freedom and enforced strict control of printed matter. Only the truth entrusted to the Church may be disseminated without restriction. Benedict XV. Pius XI (1914–1922) maintained the categorization of "good" and "bad" press. Pius XI (1922–1939) then tightened the tone again. He declared that journalists should, with devotion and obedience, publish whatever the Church desired. A slow shift in thinking began with Pius XII (1939–1958). He emphasized the value of freedom of expression. At the same time, however, he warned of the danger that human freedom could undermine the truth. Freedom, therefore, could only be exercised in a qualified manner and guided by Church teaching.
All good with the Council?
Many Catholics associate Vatican II with an opening of the Church to the world. But the Magisterium remained skeptical of the modern public and the press. After the announcement of the Council and during the first session, the Vatican attempted to treat the Church assembly as an internal matter. Bans on speech and communication resulted. While journalists were given more freedom after the change of pontificate, the Curia and some prelates ensured that stricter secrecy was maintained again from the third session onwards. Towards the end of the Council, tensions between the media and the hierarchy intensified – by the end, mutual attacks and criticism were the order of the day. The attitude of John XXIII and Paul VI towards a free press and the Vatican's press policy fluctuated during the Council – and after – between restrictions and cautious attempts at openness. John Paul II, in keeping with the tradition, held Catholic journalists accountable for serving the Church's mission. He saw the media above all as "wonderful and timely tools for spreading the Gospel."
Fifty years after the Council, Benedict XVI declared: "There was the Council of the Fathers – the true Council, but there was also the Council of the Media. […] The Council that had an immediate impact on the people was therefore the Council of the Media, not the Council of the Fathers." While the "true Council" was carried out in faith, the "Council of Journalists," according to Ratzinger, naturally (!) took place outside of faith. The assessment of the contemporary witness on the Chair of Peter: "We know that this Council of the Media was accessible to everyone. It was therefore the predominant one that had a greater impact and brought about much harm, many problems, truly much misery: closed seminaries, closed monasteries, banalized liturgy... and the true Council had difficulty being implemented, realized."
Communio hierarchica = communicatio hierarchica
The hierarchical Church structure corresponds to hierarchically controlled communication. It prefers the transmission of eternal truths and rarely addresses societal communication expectations. The ban on interviews at the last World Synod under Pope Francis is evidence of this.
This attitude runs counter to journalistic principles such as transparency, critical examination of authorities, and current reporting. The extent of this tension is still evident today in the dispute between the Cologne diocese leadership and Joachim Frank of the Kölner Stadtanzeiger newspaper.
The contradiction between the demand for democracy in the church's social discourse and institutional action is striking. The question arises as to how an institution with this attitude can survive in a world of free speech with the obligation to provide the best argument.
Coping Strategies
Church representatives have developed three strategies to deal with this tension:
Wall of Silence: A free press is seen as a threat. Secrecy is the result. Criticism is met with moralizing. For representatives of this movement, any public discussion of church affairs is a veritable betrayal. Examples include leading figures at Vatican II, the press policy of the World Synod, and the Church's handling of (sexual) violence.
Two-world logic: This group recognizes the public sphere but wants to keep discussions within church-imposed limits. The press is valued, but the expectation remains that journalists distinguish between church and world. The omnipresent narrative that church (decision-making) processes are not comparable to secular procedures testifies to this attitude. This was also observed at the World Synod.
Dialogue instead of monologue: Proponents of this position advocate for an openness worthy of the name. They see journalism as a legitimate actor in social communication. They view the public sphere as an opportunity for participation and transparency.
Communicatio instead of censura: New Pope – new tone?
Pope Leo XIV, in his role as cardinal, has repeatedly commented on issues of journalism. As an internationally active churchman who was active on social media himself before his election as Pope and demonstrably read online media, he knows the role media plays today. In interviews, he praised the opportunities social media offers for the Church's mission and, at the same time, called for comprehensive media education to distinguish good from bad.
At one of his first audiences, Leo finally emphasized the value of freedom of the press, but pointed out that the Church's proper authority should be taken into account in reporting.
But it didn't stop there: A noteworthy greeting was given at a play about the Peruvian journalist Paola Ugaz and her work for the now-defunct Sodalicio de Vida Christiana group. In it, Leo writes: "The truth belongs to no one, but it is everyone's responsibility to seek it, preserve it, and serve it." He continued: "Freedom of the press is an indispensable common good." Journalists who practice their profession conscientiously should not allow their voices to be silenced out of selfish interests or fear of the truth, Leo argues.
If Leo means what he writes, this could mark a departure from previous church narratives. What this means for the actions of an institution that presents itself as the divinely established guardian of eternal certainties remains to be seen.
.jpeg)
Comments