The Church, the Airwaves and the Internet
by Philip C. L. Gray, J.C.L., Charles M. Wilson
And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation." Mark 16:15
The Church, to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the deposit of faith so that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit it might protect the revealed truth reverently, examine it more closely, and proclaim and expound it faithfully, has the duty and innate right, independent of any human power whatsoever, to preach the gospel to all peoples, also using the means of social communication proper to it. Canon 747, §1
The various means available are to be used to proclaim Christian doctrine; first of all preaching and catechetical instruction, which always hold the principal place, but also the presentation of doctrine in schools, academies, conferences and meetings of every type and its diffusion through public declarations in the press or in other instruments of social communication by legitimate authority on the occasion of certain events.Canon 761
In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through writings or the use of the instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgement and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals. Canon 823, §1
The Church has taken the command of our Lord with the utmost seriousness. To accomplish this mission, sometimes at terrible cost to the messengers, she has used the written and spoken word in various ways over the course of her history. The methods by which written and spoken messages are transmitted have recently come to be called the instruments of social communications. Aside from the introduction of movable type some five hundred years ago, the technical aspects of these instruments did not change significantly until the nineteenth century, which witnessed remarkable improvements in methods of manufacturing inexpensive paper, in printing technology and in the invention of the telegraph and telephone. As we all know, the twentieth century saw a virtual eruption of scientific progress along with the worst sort of human depravity. Whether and to what extent the advancement of scientific knowledge caused the human catastrophes is a matter for debate. Who knows what further advances—or horrors—the twenty-first century holds in store for us?
When the first Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1917, radio and motion pictures were in their infancy, television was only a theoretical possibility and no one even conceived of anything like the Internet. As a result, the Code’s focus was almost exclusively on preaching and books. Vatican II did set forth some general principles on the use of the means of social communication (Inter mirifica), as does the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2493-2499). The 1983 Code of Canon Law likewise incorporated legislatively the principles stated in Inter mirifica, but did not furnish comprehensive legal standards by which these principles are to be put into practice. The new Code did mention radio and television but not the Internet. While Al Gore had invented the Internet by the time the 1983 Code was promulgated, the Church and much of society in general did not foresee its profound impact on our culture!
The National Conference of Catholic Bishops as well as individual bishops have discussed the matter of norms for radio and television broadcasts. In fact, their proposed norm presented last November at the plenary session seemed to produce nothing but confusion on the part of those bishops who commented on it and, in view of the way it was worded, this is not surprising. Whatever statutes eventually may be enacted, it is obvious that the Internet will have to be taken into account, as it will surely play an important and increasing role in Catholic education and evangelization. There are a great number of Internet sites out there now and, with the convergence of technologies now taking place, in the near future we will have access to audio, video and written materials of all kinds through one system. Certainly, radio and television broadcasting networks and stations as we know them will be less of a factor. However the technology develops, what is said—or widely perceived to be said—in the name of the Church is a matter of the highest concern and importance to ecclesiastical authority.
This is an extremely wide-ranging and complex subject. Here we are going to deal only with the issue of regulation of communications produced by Catholic apostolates that are not formally linked to the Church but nonetheless strive to adhere to her teaching and discipline. Fortunately, there are a number of excellent ventures, including—to name just a few—EWTN, Catholic Family Radio, PetersNet, St. Joseph Communications, Ignatius Press and a number of local radio and low power television stations. Periodicals such as The Wanderer and Crisis have an interest as well because they now have web sites and within a few years will easily be able to take their message to the public in audio and visual form if they so choose.
One would think that our bishops would welcome the presence these apostolates and encourage and cooperate with them in spreading the saving message of Christ and permeating the temporal order with the spirit of the gospel. With the tensions and turmoil within the Church today, it goes without saying to CHRISTIFIDELIS readers that this is not the case. We only have to look at the norms on televised Masses issued by the bishop of Birmingham, Alabama (on which we have not said the last word by any means) and the proposed legislation discussed at the NCCB plenary session last November to see a portent of what may be in store. Thus, we need to juxtapose the right and duty to exercise episcopal vigilance with the right of the faithful to engage freely in apostolic activity and the legitimate autonomy of association provided for in the law.
While the 1983 Code is understandably inadequate to deal with the technological innovations, it provides our only starting point. Our general approach will be to concentrate on an understanding of public and private acts as well as public and private associations. The basic principle that we shall follow is found in canon 18. "Laws which establish a penalty or restrict the free exercise of rights or which contain an exception to the law are subject to a strict interpretation."
It seems that a real effort was made by the Code to maintain a distinction between public and private acts and to allow greater autonomy to the private sector. The term public act means one done in the name of the Church. Those who are in public vows or hold public office, and those in the sacrament of orders can so act. Because of this fact, lawful authority has an obligation to provide direct oversight and guidance on faith and morals or other matters as provided by law. This is clearly exemplified in the laws on public associations of the faithful. Unlike private associations, a public association can receive a mission to teach Christian doctrine in the name of the Church, promote public worship or pursue a purpose which by nature is reserved to ecclesiastical authority (c. 301, §1). The members of a public association act in the name of the Church when fulfilling the purposes of the association. Because of its public nature, the authority who erected it has direct supervision over the association and specifically has the right to confirm the election of a moderator, install a moderator presented or name a moderator in accord with the approved statutes; to name a chaplain (c. 317, §1); to designate a trustee to temporarily direct the association (c. 318, §1); to remove the moderator for a just cause (c. 318, §2) and to suppress the association or otherwise declare it extinct in accord with the law (c. 320, §1). The laws regarding religious institutes and clerics contain similar provision for the exercise of direct authority over those who act in the name of the Church.
It must be remembered that the lay faithful have the special duty to imbue the secular order with the spirit of the gospel. The clergy and members of religious institutes do not share directly in this mission. In order to fulfill their duty, the lay faithful would necessarily exercise their rights to form associations (c. 215) and promote and sustain apostolic action in their own name (c. 216). It also goes without saying that the lay members of Christ’s faithful would have to use the means of social communication in pursuit of their mission and, in this regard, the law provides clear guidance.
The lay Christian faithful have the right to have recognized that freedom which all citizens have in the affairs of the earthly city. When using that same freedom, however, they are to take care that their actions are imbued with the spirit of the gospel and are to heed the doctrine set forth by the magisterium of the Church. In matters of opinion, moreover, they are to avoid setting forth their own opinion as the doctrine of the Church.
From this, we can see that a broadcasting network or station or an Internet site controlled and operated by a religious institute, a diocese or parish, for example, would be subject to the supervisory acts described above. By contrast, the same facilities controlled and operated by a private apostolate would not. There remain questions as to what powers a bishop would have to control programs and policies of a private association. Except for overall vigilance and visitation, as long as the individuals involved act in their own names, the law allows little room for a bishop to intervene directly in its internal affairs. Members of the faithful are, of course, always individually responsible before God and the Church for their actions
In this regard, canon 823, §1 quoted above could apply. It should be noted that the statute distinguishes between the general exercise of watchfulness over the instruments of social communications and the right to demand the submission of writings. The Code does not mention materials published in electronic form that could be downloaded and printed from the Internet. It could be argued, with due regard for c. 18, that they could also be viewed as "writings to be published by the Christian faithful."
Canon 824, §2 notes that the review and approval prior to publication applies to books and any "writings whatsoever which are destined for public distribution." This would immediately disqualify things not written and also written things not intended for public distribution. Furthermore, cc. 825-828 limits even writings intended for public distribution that must be submitted for review and approval to just three categories: (1) Those collections and translations of magisterial statements, and written materials used for prayer; (2) Those books treating of questions regarding sacred scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history and moral or religious disciplines that will be used as textbooks in Catholic schools; (3) Books and other writings on religion and morals that are sold or distributed in churches and oratories. In all three categories, the materials used influence a public dimension of Church life. In the case of other writings dealing with the subjects mentioned above, it is recommended but not required for the faithful to submit the works to ecclesiastical authorities.
The only place in the Code where radio and television are mentioned specifically is in canon 831, §2: It is for the conference of bishops to establish norms concerning the requirements for clerics and members of religious institutes to take part on radio and television in dealing with questions of Catholic doctrine or morals. This canon does not include any other grouping of persons, nor does it include the ordained or professed in regard to other work performed in a private apostolate. Based on canon 18 and the right of the faithful to associate and promote apostolic activity, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the conference can only regulate the acts of clerics and members of religious institutes in regard to programming. As to the overall programming activities of a private apostolate, it would seem that the duty and right to be "watchful" mentioned in the first sentence of canon 823, §1 refers to the loose vigilance similar to what a bishop would exercise with regard to any other kind of private apostolate. In the second sentence regarding writings as opposed to radio and television programming, a stricter obligation to review and, if necessary, to condemn material is demanded. The fact that other means of social communication are not singled out for more restrictive oversight is significant. It would appear that the legislator did not intend it.
In conclusion, there is no question that individual bishops and conferences of bishops throughout the world have a key role to play in seeing to it that the instruments of social communication are used in the service of Christ’s Church. However, we would assert that the focus of pastoral care should be directed toward individual authors. It would be counter-productive, technically impossible and arguably unlawful to attempt to manage private associations that use the instruments of social communications.
© Christifidelis, St. Joseph Foundation
This item 2899 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
