On the afternoon of June 14, a rather spirited, fascinating, and unexpected debate broke out on the floor of the USCCB spring meeting in Ft. Lauderdale.
At issue was the possibility of reconsidering “Faithful Citizenship,” the 2007 statement of the U.S. Bishops on the formation of conscience regarding matters political. A group of bishops, including myself, had proposed that instead of producing another lengthy document to succeed “Faithful Citizenship,” the bishops ought to write a brief and pointed letter on the political challenges of the present moment and then to create a video or a series of videos bringing forth the salient points of Catholic social teaching. Our thinking was motivated by recent research, which indicates that a very small percentage of Catholics actually read that formal statement from ten years ago. Though it had been taken in and appreciated by the bishops themselves, by lobbyists and political activists, and by members of the Catholic commentariat, it was largely ignored by the very people we were endeavoring to reach.
Once the formal proposal had been made, a number of bishops rose to speak against it and in favor of writing a document to replace “Faithful Citizenship.” With considerable eloquence, they reminded us of the shift in emphasis that has taken place with the magisterium of Pope Francis. Concern for the environment, for economic justice, for the poor, for the victims of violence, for refugees and immigrants has been brought to the fore in a new way, and our teaching, they insisted, ought to reflect this change.
About midway through the discussion, I rose to make a clarification. I said that the members of our group were fully aware of what I called “the Franciscan shift” in emphasis and that we very much wanted the bishops’ teaching to reflect this change. What was really at issue, I explained, was not so much the content of the teaching but the vehicle for its transmission. I said that practically all of the people in the room are on one side of the page/screen divide, so that we rather naturally privilege written texts and find them more substantive.
But the overwhelming majority of those under the age of, say, fifty are, I continued, on the other side of that watershed. They are far more oriented to the screen, far less likely to plow their way through a lengthy written text. I recalled that about fifteen years ago, a member of my staff called to tell me that an article I had written had been accepted by a major Catholic publication. I was delighted, but my excitement was curtailed a bit when he informed me that it would appear on that outlet’s online edition and not in the print edition. Sensing my disappointment, my colleague said, “You know, this is much better. You’d rather have it online than in print. It will reach a much wider audience.” That little episode was the beginning of a shift in consciousness for me.
With that clarification made, the conversation on the conference floor transposed to a different key, as the meta-question of communication became the focus. One bishop observed that on his flight to Ft. Lauderdale, he had noticed that no one around him was reading a book, but practically everyone had his or her eyes glued to a screen. Another bishop, an expert in the use of social media, applauded the shift to digital forms of communication but also expressed the concern that people will not pay attention to videos longer than a few minutes in length. How can the Church adequately convey its teaching in a sound bite? But still other bishops chimed in to say that nothing prevents us from producing a series of short pieces that, together, cover a good deal of ground. Finally, some wondered which protocols would govern the approval of videos rather than texts. I will confess that as this part of the lively discussion unfolded, a smile spread across my face, for I have believed for some time that this issue of how we communicate is perhaps as important as what we communicate—that is, if we are interested in moving the conversation beyond a very narrow circle.
Inevitably some commentators have tried to read the discussion as a fierce disagreement between the “Francis bishops” and their detractors. Nothing could be further from the truth. The overwhelming majority of the bishops want the full range of Catholic social teaching to be faithfully defended and they welcome Pope Francis’ renewed emphasis on the environment and care for the marginal. The far more compelling conversation—and one that clearly engaged the interest of the bishops on the floor of the conference—had to do with how we propagate this teaching as widely and effectively as possible.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“Concern for the environment, for economic justice, for the poor, for the victims of violence, for refugees and immigrants has been brought to the fore in a new way”
Bilge.
A smile may not be altogether wise. Technology is hardly neutral. The “how” AND the “what” both matter, but truth IS more important than style. Always and forever. “The overwhelming majority of the bishops want the full range of Catholic social teaching to be faithfully defended….” I hate to be a crank, but they might back up and try to simply get out the teachings on God, sin, and salvation… On the environment, immigration, transsex… there is already a surplus of communication and years of babble from the bishopric.
I am reading this article, as most others, on my Nook. (I also use a Kindle, my phone, and computer.) In all honestly, I have not read Faithful Citizen, and I am not likely to view the new video-assuming it is a video or even a series of short videos.
.
Why? Lack of trust/belief. I don’t trust I’m getting the truth out of the bishops and priests, much less The Truth (Way and Life). Instead, I think I’m simply getting Major Talking Points from Big Government types. Sometimes Republican, but mostly Democrat/Socialist. Everyone needs to put food on their plate, a roof over their heads, and find friends. This is simply the way they’ve chosen to do it.
.
I know people will say the Vatican especially has always been corrupt, and this merely proves God exists and that The Catholic Church is the real deal–“It must have God’s favor or else it would have collapsed long ago!” they say.
.
Well, my children will not live as richly as the Church hierarchy lives. And every week I put into the collection plate and ask myself why.
.
I suspect I’m not alone in thinking that way. I also suspect that may be one reason (not the only) many have decided to stay home on Sunday or look for greener pastures elsewhere.
.
Your Excellency: Respectfully, what the USCCB has to say with regard to voting isn’t uppermost in my mind in the voting booth, not because I am a fallen-away Catholic — quite the contrary. Because I try to be a faithful Catholic (how successfully, only God can say), I am highly skeptical of the overwhelmingly liberal-leaning USCCB, whose silence about matters of grave moral import; vocal and uncritical support of the Franciscan reforms (which are not in themselves bad, but almost inevitably put the em-PHAS-is on the wrong syl-LAB-le); and wishy-washiness about anything that might get them disinvited from the next golf scramble mean most laypeople are — at best — confused about Catholic moral and social teaching and, at worst, are left to rely on their improperly formed consciences. IMHO, the USCCB as an institution has discredited itself so many times over, any guidance it gives will be met with indifference from the few parishioners left in the pews — or outright skepticism from folks like me.
Does the Bishop realize that the fact he has written a piece to offer an explanation of what “really” happened, give up the ghost? The problem is not the mode of communication but the flawed message the bishops have been sending out for some time. This reveals one of the troubling aspects of this pontificate and the fact that the USCCB has for some time been trying to elevate prudential matters into doctrinal ones while deemphasizing doctrinal ones. Barron unwittingly admits this- how can you have a “shift in emphasis” without thereby saying that lesser issues are somehow as or more important than weightier ones, or that weightier ones will loose emphasis. That’s semantics being used to cover a troubling change. Case in point with the recent immigration huff- the same bishops are by and large nowhere to be found when it comes to public personas advocating intrinsic evils and balk at the notion of enacting discipline for such. They have also sold out to leftist politics and perhaps the half a billion dollars they annually receive from the government, and have become involved in promoting socio-political agendas, also taking a cue from this pontificate, e.g., having the Church involved in adopting the (questionable) thesis of “climate change.” And notice there was little to nothing from the conference about promoting the Truths of the Catholic Faith. We are in a state of crisis and the bishops are emphasizing side issues, i.e. when many Catholics are uncatechized and don’t practice the basics, do you expect them to heed a usccb voter’s guide? And to say that changing the format is the issue and will result in people paying more attention. Really?
Catholicism and statism don’t mix.
The bishops are free to enumerate the precepts, either divinely revealed or known as the natural law, regarding communal life. And they should also emphasize the ORDER OF CHARITY, which was done in article just recently at Catholic World Report (
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/06/19/immigration-moral-authority-and-the-order-of-love/). But equating moral theology (which is what Catholic Social Teaching msotly is) or prudential conclusions with such precepts is wrong and diminishes the credibility of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
“I have believed for some time that this issue of how we communicate is perhaps as important as what we communicate…” Good grief! What a credo, fed by Pope Marshall McLuhan’s many encyclicals, and clearly modeled on Jesus’ admonition to the Disciples: “Do not worry about what you will say. Just say anything that pops into your head, and express any opinions you want, and the Holy Spirit will come upon you, giving you just the right platform to get through the cultural noise.”
I have occasionally found something really worth hearing or reading from Bishop Barron. But when the bishops meet together, some kind of weird group hypnosis seems to take hold. Reading the pronouncements of the USCCB is not for the weak in faith. How is it possible that 200 highly-educated men can utter, collectively, almost nothing but gibberish for 50 years running?