The Internet and the Magisterium: A Brave New World of Mixed Messages

Cambridge, MA. Once again, allow me to speak in an area where I am by no means expert: I am sure that many of you have already read Pope Benedict’s letter of March 10, “concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre.” In it, the Pope goes to great lengths, in a disarmingly candid and unpretentious way, to talk about the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the nearly simultaneous lifting of the excommunication of Bishop Williamson and the discovery and widespread notice of his denial of the Holocaust. The entire letter is worth reading and pondering in most* of its details, but one section prompts my reflection today, and I reproduce it here (with my emphases): “An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church’s path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council – steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore.” The situation was out of hand, and information was making its way around the internet in a way that Vatican could not anticipate, rein in, or even fully remedy. The Pope adds, “I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news.” 
     But the problem is probably much larger than the letter indicates. It is indeed a matter of checking the internet, and finding easily available information on such issues. But it is also, I think, a matter of recognizing that the dynamics of the dissemination of information, and the interpretation and reception of that information, have changed dramatically in our time. While I am definitely not the person to comment on the new age of communication in which we live — I have no cell phone, I do not spend any time at all on Facebook, I neither twitter nor really understand what it is — I do have a sense of how knowledge is available to us in new, breathtaking swift ways, that no single voice or authorial intention can control. What we know, it seems to be, comes flying at us from all directions, and no one among us gets to control the flow or reception of the information. This is a common enough insight, to be sure, but hits more heavily when it is applied to the quintessentially singular voice of the Magisterium. The issue is therefore not just that someone at the Vatican should be googling every day, but rather that in our age there will not be any purity or single-minded of message: everything comes at us, all at once, and so the “sudden,” “apparent,” and “overlapping of opposed processes” becomes the normal way of things.

Thus, the desire to seek reconciliation with bishops illicitly ordained arrives precisely alongside the discovery that one of the bishops denies the Holocaust and that, until very recently, the same St. Pius X Society had a problematic essay about Jews at its website. The embrace of the wayward bishops turns out to be at best a very mixed message. Or, to take another case that is still alive in the news. The flood of media reports on the tragic case of the 9 year old girl in Brazil who was raped by her step-father, and thus became pregnant with twins, has also made the Church look bad. The local archbishop’s decision to excommunicate the girl’s mother when she painfully opted for an abortion for her daughter, to save her life, has seemed to most observers cluelessly cruel, and this was only accentuated by reports of Vatican agreement that even this particular abortion was a greater crime than that of the seemingly loathsome man who repeatedly abused a girl he should have been protecting. Irregardless of the point being made about the sanctity of life, what everyone will remember is that the victim’s mother was excommunicated while no effort was made to excommunicate the stepfather; there are technicalities around excommunication, to be sure, but the juxtaposition on the internet has been compellingly awful, a mess attenuated a bit, today, when another bishop points out what everyone was thinking: this sad case was a special case, deserving more evident compassion. I can think of other cases where the speed and juxtapositions of the internet take the message out of the hands of the Vatican and the bishops in ways that are revealing or distorting or both, but I will list no more here.
     I know — as my readers know — that any such examples can and ought to be sorted out, distinguished, considered separately, on the particular merits of particular cases. I agree, even in my capacity as a comparative theologian: easy analogies and lack of attention to details almost never gets us anywhere. But my point here is that in the age of the internet and incredibly swift and fluid communications, people will see and hear and ponder all these cases together. Perhaps the familiar medieval axiom gains new force here: “Quidquid recipitur per modum recipientis recipitur” — “Whatever is received, is received in the mode of the person receiving it;” we do not receive the news as we did even 10 or 20 years ago, much less centuries ago, and there is no absolute exception for statements from bishops or from the Vatican. In our age of incredibly fluid communications, we will receive many stories together, and we will find next to one another many accounts and events that in the old days might be considered slowly, patiently, separately. So what Rome says, will become fluid data for the internet, and stories will be mixed together, overlapping, compared and contrasted in the most unusual ways. Unless we face up to this, Church teachings and decisions will always be accompanied by counter-meanings and unexpected-effects that change rather dramatically what was imagined to be communicated in the first place. Such is the fate of teachers, and good teachers face up to the reality: as I have found in decades of teaching, I cannot get my message across unless I pay attention to what my students have noticed, to what their more immediate and urgent questions may, even inconveniently, happen to be. No single message can be stipulated to be the message, to the exclusion of everything else. The dizzying collage of the internet just makes awkward and inconvenient questions all the more likely and persistent, even when they are not supposed to be the questions.
     I, non-expert on all things of the media, but for what it’s worth, my view is that the difficulties we have been facing in this new, amazingly swift and interconnected internet world are not going away. It is not just a matter of an error once in a while, or ill will on the part of others. While anti-Catholic bias is surely alive and well, and while there are any number of very stupid and ill-informed ways of receiving and judging the information the Church puts forth, nonetheless the issue goes deeper and has to do with what it means to teach — even to Teach — in our world today. The internet — a symbol of all the changes around us — prompts us to receive and interpret together, and swiftly, what was supposed to be neatly compartmentalized, cautiously read one item at a time. We will keep finding it almost impossible to separate out and explain lucidly excommunications for this but not for that, acts of harshness in one direction and patience in another, compassion for some but not evidently for others. For the Church to teach and govern successfully today, it will have to be much more careful, and much more nuanced, in any of its pronouncements, since whatever is said will be received in the mode of receiver, as Google and myriad internet connections make myriad unexpected interpretations possible, even likely.

*Note: Regarding the Pope’s letter as a whole, I cannot help but add one more opinion about the importance of anticipating — and not provoking unintentionally — debates that are not pertinent to the main topic at hand: It would have been good, in my view, to reserve for another letter what is really a separable issue, the Pope’s distinction of God and the God of Sinai from the “other gods:” “In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god [my emphasis] but the God who spoke on Sinai…” It is true, very true, that the world needs God, and we must do what we can to make the true God truly known, but it is not helpful or necessary, particularly in the midst of making another point, to insult Hindus, for instance, by seeming to refer in so offhand a way to their deities as “just any god.” Should Hindus — who often honor the divine as Many and as One — read the papal letter, I could imagine another unanticipated internet conflagration bursting into flame, unintentionally ignited by what was clearly not the Pope’s main point.

Advertisement
Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
9 years 2 months ago
The Church's problem is not the mode of communication but the mode of thinking. In the Brazilian case, the local ordinary should have acted quietly on this case and consulted with medical advisors. If it is true that the young girl's life was in imminent danger from the pregnancy, the abortion is justified (as there would be no way to save the two babies if the pregnancy killed the mother). It may have been advisible to consult Rome, if they were smart enough to seek medical authority rather than imposing their own beliefs on how the case should be handled. As for Williamson, et al - you don't lift that kind of excommunication without talking with the penitent. If we are to understand that there was no penance, then the local nuncios should have entered into discussion with the bishops concerned - rather than handling the issue from the Chair of Peter. In both case, Benedict must learn to behave like a Pastor and not a teacher - or he will attract no one to the faith.
9 years 2 months ago
Where would we be without a Jesuit influence to correct the Holy Father? On the unity of the All and the One, I can imagine that the Holy Father may have read Chesterton: "And the differences between different religions will be still more strenuous as a branch of study. They will bring back the old worry called theology, and the still older worry called thought. They will require him to examine doctrines, even in order to disagree with them. How much easier it is to say that it is all much of a muchness, and pretty much the same in the long run! How much simpler it is to sink into an armchair with a seraphic smile, and say that the All is identical with the One".
9 years 2 months ago
I think the point is that it is difficult to make a point because the extraneous information, incomplete information, and imperfect phrasing, which are the main features of short and fast postings, spark emotional responses from people that then carry them in unintended directions. I tend to disagree with that point. I think short and fast gets new perspectives to more people better than long and well developed does. If hypocricies are exposed in the process, all the better. Bottom line for this moment in time: Revisit the concept of excommunication. Discard automatic. Stop misusing it as a personnel management tool.
9 years 2 months ago
Well, you certainly have a lot to say and I laud the at least 2 persons who read this and commented and myself; of course I read St. Augustine and St. Athanasius for relaxation so am no stranger to extended prologues; on the other hand, I couldn't quite get the point - would you mind texting it?

Advertisement

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

An official wedding photo of Britain's Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, center, in Windsor Castle, Windsor, England. Others in photo from left, back row, Jasper Dyer, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Prince Charles, Doria Ragland, Prince William; center row, Brian Mulroney, Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth II, Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte, Prince George, Rylan Litt, John Mulroney; front row, Ivy Mulroney, Florence van Cutsem, Zalie Warren, Remi Litt. (Alexi Lubomirski/Kensington Palace via AP)
A poll found that 66 percent of the British public declared they were not interested in the Windsor wedding.
David StewartMay 23, 2018
God simply is a triad of love: a going out in love, a return in love and thus, ever more, love itself.
Terrance KleinMay 23, 2018
The leaders sent a letter to President Donald Trump, administration officials and members of Congress.
Altar servers lead a Palm Sunday procession March 25 in Youtong, in China's Hebei province. (CNS photo/Damir Sagolj, Reuters)
The pope appeared to be alluding to the fact that since February there has been a crackdown by the Chinese authorities on religion in the mainland.
Gerard O’ConnellMay 23, 2018