|
|
|
TOM'S
TAKE ...
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Archbishop John Foley's memo to bishops on communication...  In many ways Archbishop John Foley's memo to bishops regarding communication is an extraordinary admission of the mess the Church is in as a communicator in the modern world. It is very pleasing though to see someone as senior as this "spelling it out" at this Public Relations 101 sort of level. My view is though that even if every bishop in the Western world took his advice to heart and implemented what was in his address to the letter it actually wouldn't make a great deal of difference. That wouldn't be enough to reverse the decline in participation. I think there are a couple of vital considerations that are left out of his address. Confusion The first is, I submit, that there is much confusion in the world at the moment as to precisely what "the Good News" is we're actually meant to be communicating actually is. If there is fundamental confusion and disagreement over what the base message some institution is trying to communicate is, then it really does not matter how good one's communication methodologies and channels are. In fact it might even be argued that "better communications" might actually exacerbate the problem. I honestly doubt that most bishops would even recognise that there is confusion, let alone fundamental disagreement, over what "the Good News" they are endeavouring to communicate is. Even in our reasonably homogenous community here I would say there are many differences of opinion and emphasis as to what the core Christian or Catholic message actually is. In this community though, I would also submit, there is at least a reasonable tolerance of our differences in viewpoint and at least a sense of mutual respect that in our imperfect human ways we are all struggling, or groping in the darkness of our unknowing, towards roughly the same objective. I would not be confident holding up that proposition in the wider Church and this is amply demonstrated by our experiences in other discussion communities at various times. What is to be done about this? I honestly do not know. As Archbishop Foley himself says at one point: "Certainly, nothing can help our task of teaching and preaching more than the communications media, and sometimes nothing can complicate our responsibility to teach and preach more than the communications media." There is great truth in that. One of the problems of the mass communications' media is that it tends not to recognise diversity. When the Pope speaks the words he uses are heard in the remotest, most educationally impoverished village in India today as clearly as they are heard in Piccadilly Circus, Times Square or Martin Place. The language the Church uses in third world countries, or on the islands of the Pacific, might not be suitable for the highly educated and socially sophisticated masses in the suburbs surrounding London, New York or any of the Australian capitals. Similarly the language that might communicate well to the population of the educated, scientifically literate and socially sophisticated world may well cause panic, anxiety and fear that all the certitudes are being taken away in populations that are still basically at the primary school level of catechesis. In a sense this is a new challenge for the Church. In past epochs of history there was far more homogeneity in the general population that the Church ministered to. It is extremely unlikely that the homogeneity of the past will ever return. The likelihood is for ever increasing diversity unless climate change, or the threat of international terrorism, do finally cause the First World to ease up in their consumption and share their knowledge and resources in ways that do again lead to a narrowing of the gap between the haves and have nots of human civilisation. To some extent I think the institution can use different language in the two major hemispheres of development in the world. This is reflected in the fact that Catholicism seems to continue to enjoy enthusiasm in the third world. The communication challenge she faces is in the developed world. It is in our first world communities where the confusion exists over what the core "Good News" actually is and where the great majority of the population have become indifferent to anything much the institutional Church has to say. What is to be done?
Archbishop Foley's address is itself something of an acknowledgement of the problem we have in the West. The problem is silence. He wants the bishops to get out there and make more noise. What his paper doesn't address is the underlying cause as to why there is this silence? Why have our bishops ceased communicating in language that does intersect with the great majority of the population in the communities they are meant to be serving? I've spent a lot of time thinking about this for a couple of decades now. Once I was convinced the problem was principally caused by the allure and distraction provided by affluence and consumer culture – and so-called "liberals" who'd taken over the Church. I don't subscribe to that view anymore. There is simply no evidence that liberals have had any significant influence in control of the Church's communication agenda whatsoever. All the popes for at least the last couple of hundred years have been fairly conservative individuals, even the more "liberal" of these, such as John XXIII, Benedict XV and Leo XIII, could hardly be described as radicals. The greater evidence is that the communications' agenda of the Church has, if anything, been usurped by conservative elements in the flock. In my time as coadministrator of the CathNews discussion forum I lost count of the number of people of broadly moderate views who were constantly put off by that element who are forever protesting how loyal they are and how they alone know all the rules and laws of Catholicism. In large part why Catholica exists is from the simple frustration of trying to find some place in which a conversation might be held without having to constantly put up with this "I'm holier than all of youse" behaviours. One suspects the Bishops are as sick of it as everyone else. The forces of the psyche that one is dealing with in that sector of the population are actually more powerful than the strong nuclear force. Bishops find it as frustrating trying to deal with that mindset as everyone else. Our own country, Australia, is a good median of what is happening internationally. The only Bishops who really say anything these days are those who share the same mindset as this sector that has reduced the rest of the Church to silence — or sent them scurrying out the door. The culture in the Church, from the Bishops down, is that it is useless raising one's voice to say anything different because who is listening. Up until recently Rome was certainly on the side of the minority that was setting the agenda and bishops were being appointed with the specific agenda of "cleaning up the Church in Australia" according to the agenda of this insecure sector of the population. For Archbishop Foley's communication agend to really start to work the broad sweep of our episcopal leaders need to be encouraged to start speaking from the heart again. They have to be freed from this culture where everyone is constantly looking over their shoulders to see if they are being watched. They need to be freed to speak with freedom inspired by the Holy Spirit and in language that intersects with the entire population not just those small sectors that suffer from particular kinds of personal insecurities and neuroses. In summary... In summary then the mass media is a problem in that it is difficult to nuance Church teaching for the diversity of different audiences that are now out in the world. The Church does have a responsibility to the new audiences she is attracting in the third world. She also has a responsibility to the insecure or immature sectors of her flock in the developed world. Those responsibilities though do have to be weighed against the responsibility she also has to that now vast part of the congregation in the Western world that seeks a more nuanced and sophisticated discussion of spirituality and theology. To fulfil that responsibility our bishops do need to start communicating again — and in language that does intersect with the flock they are meant to be ministering to. I think the leadership at the very highest levels in the Church needs to back up those bishops who are seeking to speak in more nuanced language. The constant appeasement of the insecure sectors has to stop. Those people do need to be gently coaxed into more adult ways of appreciating their faith. Some of them are going to kick and scream and it is not going to be pleasant. If the Church is not to descend into some remnant institution though that unpleasant task needs to be faced. There is a strong possibility that some of those people — for example those in the sedavacantist wing — may split. That has to be faced squarely. It can hardly be worse than the split we have at the moment where 85% on average across the Western world have effectively walked out of their own Church because they feel it has been stolen from them. Blessings, Tom
We welcome your thoughts in response to this commentary in our forum. Tom Scott can be contracted at: |
|||||||||||||||
 |
|
Email
this article to a friend
Post
your feedback in our forum
