1 ! Kelly Fanning William Gorden Vatican II and the Church Today ––Theology 4883 29 July 2015 Inter Mirifica and Communication in the Church Thomas Fox, a journalist for the National Catholic Reporter tells us in that publication’s online issue of September of 2013 that “Pope Francis said…the goal of church communications is ‘to understand how to enter into dialogue with the men and women of today in order to appreciate their desires, their doubts and their hopes.’” This is a remarkable statement for Catholic clergy to make, much less the supreme pontiff, and it has within it both the aggiornamento and the resourcement of Vatican II. The elements in the statement which speak to aggiornamento are crystal clear. Pope Francis uses the word dialogue and mentions not mankind or humanity or men and women in general but men and women of today. The reason this specificity is important is because people of today live in a “communications rich” or “media rich” environment. This is not to say that people of old didn’t communicate, of course. But no one can argue that the passing around of messages and information 1,000 or even 100 years ago amounted to anything like the volume we are exposed to today. What may not be as apparent is the resourcement element of Pope Francis’s statement of two years ago, namely that the Church should have an appreciation of the desires, doubts and hopes of individual Christians—that the Church should, in fact, listen to the faithful. This is an example, though not explicit, of resourcement because Jesus himself asked those who approached him, “What is it you want?” in Matthew 20:21. 2 ! “What do you want me to do for you?” Matt 20:32. He asked, “Why did you doubt?” in Matthew 14:31. Jesus’s ministry was not dictatorial, it was relational, but the Church has for centuries been a decidedly top-down enterprise. This has been all-too apparent in the methods and modes of communicating the faith to the faithful over the centuries. Sue Turnbull and John Schwarz, senior lecturers at LaTrobe University and Swinburne University respectively, describe in “Models and Theories of Communication,” notes compiled from their talks, a top-down approach which they call The Bullet Theory or The Hypodermic Needle Theory. Although communication theory is as old as the art of rhetoric (Aristotle was the first to identify in classical rhetorical theory the elements required for effective communication, namely the speaker, the speech and the listener [Hyde]) and communication itself still older, the Bullet Theory was the first communications model to be articulated as such at a time when mass communication was becoming a real force, that is with cinema and radio. It originated in the 1920s and ‘30s and was popular in the 1940s and ‘50s. In this theory the media has the power, audiences are passive, uniform meanings are (assumed to be) understood and texts and messages are closed (that is not open to interpretation). The media tells the audience what to think. For Catholics (especially those who came of age prior to Vatican II), this should sound familiar. It can be argued that the Church had long been the primary entity influencing “the message” writ large in the western world. The pope tells the bishops, who tell the priests, who tell the baptized–no feedback, no dialogue, no confusion. By the time of Vatican II there were other communications models floating around, namely the Uses and Gratifications Theory, which originated in the 1940s, and the Reinforcement Theory, which has been employed since the 1960s. Both of these 3 ! models have been subjected to empirical testing, unlike the Bullet Theory, which is purely speculative. Also unlike the Bullet Theory, these two theories are bottom-up models. The concern is no longer what the media does to people but what people do with the media. Both of these newer theories consider the media to have no (or very little) power, audiences to be active, and texts to reinforce existing opinion. The Uses and Gratifications Theory posits that the audience is diverse and members choose the media content they wish to consume. Similarly, the Reinforcement Theory states that family, peer groups, schools and one’s social class and occupation have far greater influence on the audience than does the media, which is seen to influence only in special circumstances. In the secular world one may fathom many examples of these models, but one is hard pressed to find an analogy in the Catholic Church. Unless, that is, one considers the fact that church pews are filled with people who “pick and choose” which tenets of the faith are observed. The power lies with the laity (the audience of our analogy) insofar as they have the freedom to choose to take birth control pills or have a vasectomy, for example, despite the message of prohibition conveyed by the Church (the media in our analogy). The percentage of Catholics using artificial birth control is about the same as the percentage of the whole population using artificial birth control (Newport). Among the discernible weaknesses in the analogy is the fact that there are media apart from the Church through which its message (i.e., artificial contraception is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church) is conveyed. The Church is the “mind behind the medium,” not the medium itself. Still, for the sake of our argument we shall consider the Church to be the controlling entity. 4 ! It is not until the 1970s that we have a communications theory which articulates what seems so apparent about Vatican II in hindsight, and that is the Agenda Setting Function Theory. Turnbull and Schwarz tell us that “Agenda Setting Function Theory in a nut shell says the media can’t tell you what to think (Bullet Theory), but it can tell you what to think about. The media can set the agenda about what is discussed. They are able to do this by the process of selection and omission.” Finally, in the 1980s came the Open Text Theory, which articulates the post-modern position that the media has no power, texts are always open, there is no such thing as preferred or dominant reading — there is in fact no such thing as truth, certainty, reality or knowledge — readings are rather negotiated and oppositional, and audiences are empowered to make their own meaning. This is the model which seems to describe the increasingly atheistic, individualistic and relativistic society we live in today. While every council of the Church involves communication, whether in how it is convened, its coming to decisions or the dissemination of its results, the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) of 1962-1965 was unique in council history for its communications context and the fact that it produced a document on the “media of social communication.” This context was a combination of a pastoral tone in style and language, the great number and variety of participants, and the unprecedented technology channelling information about the Council to an equally unprecedented global audience outside the echo-chamber of St. Peter’s. For better or worse, the Catholic Church in Vatican II was launched into the vast and noisy expanse of human thought and activity that it seems our world has become. The Church in the United States had a presence in Bishop Ful- 5 ! ton Sheen on the airwaves in radio (The Catholic Hour, 1930-50), in television before, during and after the Council. But the proceedings of Vatican II had a world-wide audience and spoke to a possibility of shifting positions and practices within the “set in stone” Catholic faith that Sheen so ably represented. Here was paradox at play. Paradigms were shifting. The history of papal attention to communications technology is as relatively brief as the history of that technology. Pope Pius XI was the first pope to make a radio address in February of 1931, only ten years after the first voice transmission using radio waves. Though a working radio transmitter was invented in 1895, prior to 1921 only signals had been transmitted (Verma). Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Vigilanti Cura (Latin for “watchful care”) dealing with motion pictures on June 29, 1936. Pope Pius XII released the encyclical Miranda Prorsus (Latin for “absolutely wonderful”) on the Communications Field: Motion Pictures, Radio, Television on September 8, 1957. The promise of reform that Vatican II signaled and the way it has played out in the living Church has much to do with the social communications addressed in the Decree on the Media of the Social Communications, Inter Mirifica (Latin for “among [the] wonderful”). There were more than 70 drafts of the document that eventually became Inter Mirifica, though only seven of them were ready for final approval, being first combined. This schema of the document, drafted between 1960 and 1962, was more than 40 pages long and contained four main sections. The final document, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on Dec. 4, 1963, reflecting major changes from the draft, is fewer than ten pages long with just two main sections containing 24 sub-sections. [Wikipedia] 6 ! Inter Mirifica was disseminated in late November 1962 and debated for two and a half days from Nov. 23-26, 1963. The document and the issue it addressed were considered light fare in contrast to the issues and documents considered before (liturgy and revelation) and after (the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Church). Of such little theological significance was its topic deemed that schemas on both the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Church were distributed even as the discussion of Inter Mirifica began, and council fathers occupied themselves with “peaking ahead” during debate. [O’Malley] Fifty-four council fathers spoke during debate, only one of them from the U.S. (Spellman), and 53 submitted written comments, again only one of them from the U.S. (Primo). This is notable only because television and the entertainment industry were coming to dominate the social culture of the U.S. It seems the council fathers under-estimated the influence of social culture. They considered the Church to hold greater sway, but they didn’t communicate with the faithful with anything approaching the frequency as the media of social communication they were debating. The top-down world in which the council fathers still operated rendered them ill-equipped, apparently, to consider the ever more global and relational reality of communication. And it is quite apparent that there was no inkling that in the relatively near future individuals would in fact have the ability to generate and disseminate such sound and images as were at that time in the hands of industry professionals. Forward-thinking is not a term one might attach to Inter Mirifica, though council fathers intended and thought it to be exactly that. The council fathers may be forgiven for their rather insulated consideration of the media of social communication. As the section titles of Inter Mirifica suggest, the document is entirely “of the Church.” Thomas Fox reported in the National Catholic Reporter 7 ! in 2013 that Pope Francis said “the goal of church communications is ‘to understand how to enter into dialogue with the men and women of today in order to appreciate their desires, their doubts and their hopes.’” But prior to Vatican II dialogue was not a goal of Church communications. The goal of Church communications prior to Vatican II (and arguably even since Vatican II in practice) was instruction. Bishop Leahy refers to Inter Mirifica as a “wonderful document,” however O’Malley says there was much dissatisfaction with the final draft and the fact that such a nontheological topic was under consideration in the first place. Leahy tells us that the first clear message of Inter Mirifica is that, “Modern means of communication are wonderful; there have been wonderful technical advances. We should…take up all the opportunities given to us by the world of social communications.” He further states (in a charming Irish manner) that the second message of the document is that “in taking up these things all of us have to…improve our skills, technically, [and] be…up-to-date in everything that’s going on. So it really gives a green light to going right ahead…. Let’s not forget however, that we have to communicate values…. The moral values as well as the technical advancement–that’s very important…. In particular we need training in the way we use media, how we interpret media, how we engage with media…. It’s not enough to have all these means, we need to know where they’re going, what they’re for and how to use them.” True enough, but technological advances have outpaced ethical discussions about these technologies. And it seems that only in their use can “best practices” be determined. The bishops were initially sworn to secrecy, but the press was not satisfied. They weren’t able to be present, but they found ways around restrictions, including eavesdropping on extra-conciliar conversations between participants (NETTV- 8 ! CATHOLIC). Missteps, gaffs and missed opportunities are still happening in the Church’s use of mass communications tools, but O’Malley points out that they were taking place even as Inter Mirifica was under discussion with the council’s Press Office in crisis. With the suggestion that a Third Vatican Council might be convened the mind boggles at the amount of information that would be zipping through cyberspace. Pope Francis has a Twitter feed, as do countless bishops, Eastern Rite Patriarchs, dioceses, priests, etc., and this is just one of the many (and ever growing number of) social media channels out there. The Church is not as agile as the secular world it seems, but she has made great strides in the use of social communications media. There are large numbers of Catholic websites, blogs and social media channels, notably InterMirifca.net, a website and YouTube channel. It is apparent by the language of Inter Mirifica that nothing like the communication and information landscape of today was fathomed by the Church at the time of Vatican II. Unforeseen were the changes to be wrought on human experience by technology, despite the incredible changes already established in the industrial revolution and in early mass communications. No one imagined that individuals would have in their pocket the means to communicate directly with sound and moving images in real time with vast numbers of people from nearly every part of the globe. Nor, it seems, was it imagined that the laity would become so outspoken and demanding of a hearing on matters of faith and morals. Pope Paul VI’s apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi contains a brief section entitled “Utilization of the Mass Media” in which the same framing of the issue of mass communication and the Church as found in Inter Mirifica can been seen, 9 ! though more concisely and elegantly stated. Here the Church is still set apart from the faithful. It seems the pope has not yet embraced the “People of God” image of the Church but rather (and perhaps unwittingly) exposes the same old Curia=Church outlook. But the days of “no feedback” are long gone. And if public opinion played a role in the machinations and outcomes of Vatican II, one has to imagine that it will continue to play a greater role in the ongoing life of the Church. Though it has been halting and slow in being realized, the “People of God” have a voice and are talking to one another. The Church must listen, and in Pope Francis it seems she finally has an ear for the first time since John XXIII. And with so many communications channels and individuals making use of them it is no longer possible for the Church to wield control over the message. She must rather do as Inter Mirifica directs, that is become skilled in the use of media and see to it that the faithful are well-formed (and well-informed) in both conscience and doctrine. What we have on the horizon was only hinted at in Inter Mirifica, namely the practical de-centralization of the Church in the world. The Church’s coming to grips with the shifting paradigm may seem slow when compared with the secular world’s movement, but great strides have been made. ! 10 Resources “Episode 9: Inter Mirifica & the Media.” NETTVCATHOLIC. YouTube.com, 24 May 2013. Web. 23 July 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIWu7W0nJDE> Foley, John. “The Church and Internet.” Pontifical Council for Social Communications, 22 Feb. 2002. Web. 29 July 2015. <http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_20020228_church-internet_en.html> Fox, Thomas. “Francis: church communications must be a ‘dialogue.’” The Francis Chronicles. National Catholic Reporter, 21 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 July 2015. <http://ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/francis-church-communicationsmust-be-dialogue> Hyde, Philip C. “Classical Rhetorical Theory.” CommunicationTheory.org, n.d. Web. 26 July 2015. <http://communicationtheory.org/classical-rhetorical-theory/> Leahy, Brendan. “Bishop Leahy on ‘Inter Mirifica.’” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 3 Dec. 2013. Web. 29 July 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ8ekuhZ5ls> Newport, Frank. “Americans, Including Catholics, Say Birth Control Is Morally OK.” Gallup, 22 May 2012. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/154799/americans-includingcatholics-say-birth-control-morally.aspx> O’Malley, John W. What Happened at Vatican II. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008. Print. ! 11 Paul VI. Evangelii Nuntiandi–Apostolic Exhortation on Evangelization in the Modern World. Frederick: The Word Among Us Press, 1975. Print. Paul VI. “Inter Mirifica–Decree on the Media of Social Communications Promulgated 4 Dec. 1963.” EWTN.com, n.d. Web. 13 July 2015. <https://www.ewtn.com/library/ COUNCILS/v2commun.htm> Pentin, Edward. “Inter Mirifica and the Changing World of Communication.” National Catholic Register. EWTN News, Inc., 15 Nov. 2013. Web. 13 July 2015. <http:// www.ncregister.com/daily-news/inter-mirifica-and-the-changing-world-of-communication> Pius XII. “Miranda Prorsus–Encyclical on the Communications Field: Motion Pictures, Radio, Television Promulgated 8 Sept. 1957.” Papal Encyclicals Online, n.d. Web. 15 July 2015. <http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MIRAN.HTM> Sheffer, Ed. “Summary of Inter Mirifica–Decree on the Means of Social Communication.” St. Thomas the Apostle Church, n.d. Web. 26 July 2015. <http://www.statucson.org/sites/statucson.org/files/LT%20Times%20-%20Summary%20of%20Inter%20Mirifica%20-%20Social%20Communication.pdf> Turnbull, Sue and John Schwarz. “Models and Theories of Communication.” Wonthaggi Secondary College, n.d. Web. 26 July 2015. <http://dalmasetto.com/pdfs/Comm_theory.pdf> Verma, Samidha. “Invention Story of Radio.” EngineersGarage, 2012. Web. 26 July 2015. <http://www.engineersgarage.com/invention-stories/radio-history>