Inter Mirifica: A Way to Evaluate the Chatterers
(As I think more about this, and as I told someone just a few hours ago, we have a structural problem here. Liberalism co-opts its enemies and it subverts the good intentions of those whose primary loyalty should be to their people, the Church, the Faith, and truth. This subversion happens through a combination of pride, greed, necessity which is all made possible without any realistic checks by the system of freedoms — free press, free speech, religious liberty. As the Church became like America due to the USA’s doctrinal warfare, the leadership is unable to deal with the problems this presents. The loss of the Index of Forbidden Books and the abandonment of the process of issuing Nihil Obstat’s as Peter Helland observed, has meant that truth is up for sale and such actions are perfectly consistent with an Americanized Church. So Inter Mirifica steps in to try and regulate the whole thing to give consumers and producers a set of criteria by which to act to insure truth is presented. Still, we have a structural problem that I suggest can be solved or at least addressed by all the Catholic chatterers signing a statement to support Inter Mirifica.)
The recent uproar over Francis’ Traditiones Custodes brought to the fore issues like responsibility in journalism and duties of the practitioners of social communication. The Church spoke definitively on the matter at the Vatican II Council with the Decree on Social Communications or Inter Mirifica one of the first two documents to come out of the Council in December, 1963. In a recent interview, the interviewer gave me a puzzled look when I mentioned the Decree. I then explained its key points and history, and I will now do a quick recap because it helps to better understand the irresponsibility of the Catholic chatterers these days.
Inter Mirifica
Chapter 98 of my book discusses how and why the Decree on Social Communication came into being. It went directly to the heart of psychological warfare. It called the Americans to a moral responsibility that they refused to accept for to do so would be to give up a great weapon. The relatively short Decree dealt with “the press, the cinema, radio, television and others of a like nature.” These were the chief avenues of the most effective communication, “directly” touched “man’s spirit,” and “opened up new avenues of easy communication of all kinds of news, of ideas and orientations.” These “means of social communication” had the ability by “their nature” to “reach and influence not merely single individuals but the very masses and even the whole of human society.”[1]
The Council recognized the beneficial nature of these means of social communication if “properly used,” however, the Church also knew that “man can use them in ways that are contrary to the Creator’s design and damaging to himself.” In Chapter I, the Church taught that pastors had a responsibility of “instructing and directing the faithful how to use these media in a way that will insure their own salvation and perfection and that of all mankind.” Laymen were to “animate these media…in accordance with God’s plan.” This required that all who “use them [the media] know the principles of the moral order and apply them faithfully in this domain.” This meant that one should take account of the circumstances in which the content is communicated – the purpose…the people, the place, the time, etc.” These “circumstances could modify and even totally alter the morality of a production.” The Council knew that “the manner in which any given medium achieves its effect” is to be given importance and cognizance.[2]
Continuing on with the responsibility of those in media, “It is essential that all those involved should form a correct conscience on the use of the media.” People in society have a “right to information on the subjects that are of concern to men either as individuals or as members of society.” Therefore, it is essential that “the content of the communication be true and – within the limits set by justice and charity – complete.” The content should also be “communicated honestly and properly.” All of this meant that “in the gathering and in the publication of news the moral law and the legitimate rights and dignity of man should be upheld.”[3]
In Paragraph 6 of that Decree, the Council set forth one of the great doctrines of Catholicism: “The Council proclaims that all must accept the absolute primacy of the objective moral order. It alone is superior to and is capable of harmonizing all forms of human activity, not excepting art, no matter how noble in themselves. Only the moral order touches man in the totality of his being as Gods rational creature, called to a supernatural destiny. If the moral order is fully and faithfully observed, it leads man to full perfection and happiness.”
Public opinion was recognized as having “enormous influence nowadays over the lives, private or public, of all citizens”. Therefore, justice and charity demanded that the means of social communication be used in the “formation and diffusion of sound public opinion.” The consumers (“readers, viewers, audiences”) of the means of social communication had a responsibility to be selective in their viewing or consumption, properly form their consciences, inform themselves about “assessments arrived at by the authorities with competence in this sphere,” (Section 9, paragraph 2) conform to assessments in accord with a “right conscience,” and “resist less wholesome influences and profit more fully from the good.” The consumers of the media, “especially the young, should learn moderation and discipline in their use” of the media.[4]
Paragraph 11 of the Decree assigned a great responsibility to the chatterers: “A special responsibility for the proper use of the means of social communication rests on journalists, writers, actors, designers, producers, exhibitors, distributors, operators, sellers, critics – all those, in a word, who are involved in the making and transmission of communications in any way whatever. It is clear that a very great responsibility rests on all of these people in today’s world: they have power to direct mankind along a good path or an evil path by the information they impart and the pressure they exert. It will be for them to regulate economic, political and artistic values in a way that will not conflict with the common good. To achieve this result more surely, they will do well to form professional organizations capable of imposing on their members – if necessary by a formal pledge to observe a moral code – a respect for the moral law in the problems they encounter and in their activities.”[5]
The duty of chatterers in religious matters is clearly spelled out: “They should ensure that religious features are entrusted to serious and competent persons and are handled with proper respect.”[6]
The civil authorities had specific responsibilities “because of the common good, toward which these media are oriented.” The civil authorities were “to defend and safeguard – especially in relation to the press – a true and just freedom of information….” The civil authorities were to act positively in protecting the “well-being of the citizens,” and they were “bound to ensure, equitably and vigilantly, that public morality and social progress are not gravely endangered through the issue of these media. This they can achieve by promulgating laws and tirelessly enforcing them. The liberty of individuals and groups is not in the least compromised by such vigilance….”[7] The civil authorities, the government, was to regulate the media by laws for the benefit of all.
Chapter II of the Decree placed a responsibility upon Catholics. The Council directed that “All the members of the Church” were to “make a concerted effort to ensure that the means of communication are put at the service of the multiple forms of the apostolate without delay and as energetically as possible….Pastors of souls should be particularly zealous in this field, since it is closely linked with their task of preaching the Gospel.” Those members of the laity who are professionally employed by the media were to “endeavor to bear witness to Christ: first of all, by doing their work competently and in an apostolic spirit, secondly by collaborating directly, each one according to his ability, in the pastoral activity of the Church….”[8]
The Catholic press could be either directed by ecclesiastical authorities or by individual Catholics, but in either event its “manifest purpose” was to “form, to consolidate and to promote a public opinion in conformity with the natural law and with Catholic doctrines and directives….”[9]
A lot had to be done. Training of priests, religious and the laity was needed in technical matters and also “doctrinal and moral formation.” This required the “provisioning of schools, institutes or faculties” for journalists, writers for the audio and visual arts, actors, critics, and “anyone else concerned.” As to the critics they were told to “give due consideration to morality in their critiques.” Catholic schools were to provide instruction and “practical experience” so as to enable Catholics to use the media properly. With a continuing sense of urgency, the Council wrote that “For quicker results, Catholic teaching and regulations in this matter should be given and explained in the catechism.” The Catholics were explicitly reminded that “they have the obligation to sustain and assist Catholic newspapers, periodicals, film projects, radio and television stations and programs. For the main aim of all these is to propagate and defend the truth and to secure the permeation of society by Christian values.” In section 17, the Council stated that “At the same time it earnestly invites groups or individuals who wield influence in technology or the economic field to give generously of their resources and of their knowledge for the support of the media, provided they are at the service of authentic culture and of the apostolate.”[10]
The Decree then established specific duties of the episcopate. Every diocese was to set aside a day every year in which the “faithful will be reminded of their duties in this domain,” to “pray for the success of the Church’s apostolate in this field,” and to “contribute toward it.” Bishops were to “oversee…to promote…to regulate” media projects and activities in their own dioceses, and a special office would be set up at the Holy See for the “Sovereign Pontiff in the exercise of his supreme pastoral responsibility for the means of social communication.” Additionally, an “effective national apostolate requires acceptance of a common objective and the unification of effort. This council therefore decides and ordains that national offices for the press, the cinema, radio and television be established everywhere and be properly supported. The main tasks of these offices will be the formation of a right conscience in the faithful in their use of the media and to encourage and regulate everything done by Catholics in this domain.”[11]
In conclusion, the Council recognized that the “influence of the means of social communication extends beyond national frontiers” and that all the various national projects should coordinate their efforts at the international level through an organization approved by the Holy See. The Council also “invites all men of good will, especially those who control the media, to use them solely for the good of humanity, for its fate becomes more and more dependent on their right use.” (Inter Mirifica, Section 24.) The proper use of the media would not cause people to “suffer damage” but rather, “like salt and light, add savor to the earth and light to the world.”[12]
With unusual speed, the Decree, which called for the publication of a pastoral instruction by the Holy See’s commission on the social media, was published immediately.
Americanist reaction
Opposition to Inter Mirifica was intense, to say the least. The Americanists, most notably John Cogley (a well-known Catholic chatterer of his day and apologist for the American plutocrats), Michael Novak who replaced Robert Blair Kaiser to become Time’s correspondent at the Council, and Murray, lead the charge in criticizing Inter Mirifica. Cogley’s criticism was based on several grounds as he told Fr. Vincent Yzermans of the NCWC Bureau of Information in September, 1964. The essence of Cogley’s objection was that the media was being subjected to the moral order and the teachings of the Church. This took a powerful weapon out of the hands of the Americans.
Cogley objected that the decree required Catholics in the media to obtain clearance from the Church for the work they do. He explained
“One is that the decree states that all Catholics working in the fields of mass communications are subject to an ecclesiastical organization which will direct and promote the work of those Catholics. This puts people working in the communications field – let us say a man who works for the NBC, CBS, Time, or the New York Times – in an impossible situation…
“It means that he just simply can’t work. These secular magazines and means of communications will not permit a man to work for them if he must clear everything through somebody else.”
Secondly, the decree required that morality and truth telling be insured in the media by legislation. Cogley objected claiming such a requirement was “a very dangerous thing in itself – politically dangerous. It is also contrary to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States….we have found from experience that it is much better if there be severe limitations on government regarding the press and means of communication.”[13]
Ironically, Cogley’s position relegated the American position to one that is historically contingent, just like Murray said was the Church’s doctrine on church and state. Historically contingent institutions can change, as Murray argued, so Cogley’s own argument was self-defeating. Cogley launched into the historical contingency of the natural law and Catholic teaching.
Cogley objected to the requirement that “one should read the Catholic press in order to find out what the natural law position and the Christian position is on issues of the day…..You can’t, by the nature of things. Also, it suggests that there is an easy way to find what is the Christian solution to a given problem. Well, the Christian solution is all bound up with history and all the rest.” Finally, when it came to keeping artistic work moral, Cogley objected the Declaration “oversimplifies completely the problem of the artist who has to be true on the one hand to morals, and on the other hand to his own vision, to his own art and all the rest that goes on with it.” The decree suggested that “the artist, whether he be novelist or a painter, should have as his primary objective to edify the faithful and somehow to give witness, in a very direct and uncomplicated way, to his religion and all that goes with it. It seems to us that this was a complete oversimplification of the whole problem of art and prudence.”[14]
While the Decree was being considered, Cogley signed a statement objecting to it. He was joined by fellow Catholics Michael Novak and Robert Blair Kaiser. A simple endorsement of “This statement is worthy of consideration” was signed by Murray, Jean Danielou SJ, Fr. Jorge Mejia, and Redemptorist Fr. Bernard Haring. The objections that he articulated to Fr. Yzermans were present in the document, but the document also made clear that the proposed decree “seems to give the state…an authority over mass media which is dangerous to political liberty everywhere and which in some countries like the United States is proscribed by constitutional law.” The statement by the signatories revealed the real dynamic at work which was the subordination of Church teaching to the powerful in a society:
“The proposed decree `De instrumentis communicationis socialis’ hardly fits in with the tenor of a Council called to make the Church relevant to modern man. It is not an aggiornamento, but a step backward.
“Where the document is not vague and banal, it reflects a hopelessly abstract view of the relationship of the Church and modern culture. It deals with a press that exists only in textbooks and is unrecognizable to us.
“Item. By its moralistic emphasis and simplistic treatment of the difficult problem of art and prudence (number 5), it appears to deny the intrinsic value of a work of art and to compromise the integrity of the Christian artist.
“Item. While the document speaks of the `primary’ moral obligation (number 11) of those who communicate information, it never speaks of the obligations of those who should be the sources of information which society needs (though the right to it is acknowledged in the text). It thus fails to come to grips with the problems of all those who are victimized by authoritarian secrecy.
“Item. The flat statement in number 14 seems to imply that the specifications of natural law and `Christian judgment’ are effortlessly provided in the Catholic press. This could be interpreted as endowing the Catholic press with a teaching authority and near-infallibility that is neither proper to journalism nor helpful to the formation of public opinion in the Church.
“Item. The document appears to be setting up an intermediate ecclesiastical authority between the individual communications worker and his employer (number 21). This is likely to be taken as a threat to the integrity of the media. It will seriously compromise the layman working in the general or `secular’ press.
“Item. In two important passages (numbers 5 and 12), it seems to give the state (auctoritas civilis) an authority over mass media which is dangerous to political liberty everywhere and which in some countries like the United States is proscribed by constitutional law.
“This document may seem to many a mere pastoral exhortation. But it is proposed as a solemn decree of an ecumenical council.
“No decree which the Second Vatican Council has yet discussed could touch the lives of contemporary men so directly. And yet this decree, as it now stands, may one day be cited as a classic example of how the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council failed to come to grips with the world around it.”[15]
Oh, I think the Second Vatican Council was right on point, and ahead of its time.
Chatterer Ideal: good will, competence, truth, completeness, presentation
True to the Decree, the Church issued pastoral instructions concerning the use of social communications. On January 29, 1971, the “Pastoral Instruction on the Means of Social Communication” (PIMSC) was set out. Part I, consisting of sections 6 through 17, was entitled “The Christian View of the Means of Social Communication: Basic Points of Doctrine.”
Section 13, paragraph 1 stated “All men of good will…are impelled to work together to ensure that the media of communication do in fact contribute to the pursuit of truth….” The real kicker was in Section 17:
“Every communication must comply with certain essential requirements, and these are sincerity, honesty and truthfulness. Good intentions and a clear conscience do not thereby make a communication sound and reliable. A communication must state the truth. It must accurately reflect the situation with all its implications. The moral worth and validity of any communication does not lie solely in its theme or intellectual content. The way in which it is presented, the way in which it is spoken and treated, and even the audience for which it is designed – all these factors must be taken into account.” (reference to Section 4 of Inter Mirifica [IM])
In sum, creators of social media content had to 1) be “authorities with competence” in their respective sphere (IM Section 9, paragraph 2); 2) assign “religious features…to serious and competent person[s]” who handle the subject with “proper respect” (IM, Section 11); 3) create communications that “must state the truth” and “accurately reflect the situation with all its implications” which includes presenting a matter properly (IM, Section 4; PIMSC, Section 17); 4) be of “good will” (IM, Section 24; PIMSC Section 13, paragraph 1).
Vetting the chatterers
The Americanists were the loudest and most vigorous opponents of Inter Mirifica. That spirit of rebellion infected and persisted with the Catholics across the years into 2021 when Francis issued Traditiones Custodes (TC), and it resonates with the Catholic Chatterers who I have elsewhere stated are Americanist at heart since Liberalism gives them their bread, butter and fame. I could not read everything said in response to TC. I could not read all the critics or commentators on the topic.
In navigating the issues that lead a consumer of the media to determine one commentator more correct than another, or even to give any credence to any commentator, I turn to a comment by Dr. Jeff Mirus the President of Catholic Culture, one of the founders of Christendom College, and who otherwise has an impressive bio that I submit lends great credibility to his various pronouncements. I would judge him to be a competent authority in certainly many areas, but not in all. His views of Taylor Marshall’s book Infiltration reflect my views in large measure, which views were gained from extensive independent research. He sets forth four rules for a commentator to be taken seriously which means they have some competency in a subject matter. One comment of Dr. Mirus resonates as I believe it offers a way to judge the competency of a commentator. Dr. Mirus wrote
“In the spirit of Catholicism, then—and I hope in the spirit of CatholicCulture.org—I will simply propose four key rules for authors who wish to be taken seriously as Catholic thinkers, rules that readers should also learn in order to know which authors deserve attention, and rules consistently broken throughout Taylor Marshall’s Infiltration: (1) In making serious judgments, suspend personal preferences; (2) Sentire cum ecclesia (think with the Church); (3) Learn the rules of evidence before making claims of wrongdoing; and (4) Never explain as a conspiracy or a plot what is out in the open, especially when it is endemic to the dominant culture.”[16]
Dr. Mirus mentions the rules of evidence which are long-tested rules to ensure that truth surfaces for consideration by the responsible parties. Their use requires a great deal of mental discipline and hard work if not also intelligence. I believe it appropriate to refer to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence from time to time as that involves testimony by expert witnesses. Rule 702 states:
“A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
- The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine the fact in issue;
- The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
- Testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
- The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.”
We could substitute “trier of fact” for reader but otherwise Rule 702 provides a concise manner, in conjunction with Dr. Mirus’ four points, in determining whether someone is competent to opine or comment on a matter.
Perhaps most importantly, a reader has to first determine who is a competent authority in terms of rendering an analysis of a topic. Commentators are asking people, readers, to trust them and so they are claiming to be experts in understanding phenomenon that are otherwise not easily understandable to the everyday person who has a job, a family, a mortgage and a number of civic activities.
However, IM and PIMSC sets forth another, more stringent requirement when coupled with “competent”. Is the commentator an authority? None of the individuals I listed above is anything more than a Catholic. They are not authorized to speak for the Catholic Church and so right away they are not authorities. However, if “authority” is understood to mean someone who knows the area in question, then we have another analysis to undertake. That analysis is akin to the idea of competence. So, to begin with, the commentator must have the requisite “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” to testify or opine on a matter.
TC is a matter of Church law and discipline, I suppose, and the structure and significance of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) as well as the structure and significance of the Novus Ordo (NO) Mass are matters of liturgy. Therefore for someone to achieve the first requirement of competency as I have defined it in accordance with the rules of evidence, Rule 702, the commentator must have training in these areas and experience in applying the principles that underlay these disciplines.
Reviewing the websites with biographical information on the five, I did not see a one who had the requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training or education to address those disciplines. That is foundational and we need not survey the remaining parts of Rule 702 (that is, b, c, d). However suffice it to say that in none of the five’s discussions of TC did I see them clearly lay out the facts or data which they examined, and clearly state the principles upon which they based their assessments. Certainly in the latter regard, Dr. Mirus’ comment about thinking with the Church is relevant in assessing the competency of any of the five and in none of the five’s commentaries was there a mention of what that would look like when it came to an evaluation of TC and the related disciplines.
With competence, the producers of content must be serious and treat religious matters with proper respect. This criteria should be joined with the next one which is to properly present the matter. As Inter Mirifica mentions, the producers of content must present the matter properly and that has to include a discussion of key points of TC as well as the context in which it was issued. It is hard to think that any of the commentators mentioned did that thoroughly and accurately given that they all have their own “take” which involves a very large calculus of saleability of their views to their respective audiences who have come to see them as some sort of guru or apostle. The five have markets and they don’t want to lose their markets.
Good will is defined today as being “friendly, helpful and cooperative.” Is that really there? Each of the five in themselves and as representatives of a larger group of chatterers, are intent on making a mark and also making a living. They have families each of them and so they must succeed in this endeavor to provide for their families and their own retirement. Therefore, they have to carve out a market share that is separate and distinct from the others. That militates against cooperation or good will.
There is another dynamic here which is tied to good will, but also goes to bias, a constant factor for evaluation in regards to any evidence taking. Bias arises from many sources. The traditional source is that someone is being paid for what they say or do and so they act or speak certain things to get money. That is reality with the five. Their living is based on how much ink they sell, so they have to write to please the audience, not necessarily put forth the truth as Inter Mirifica mandates. (Some have many children making the need for financial success all the more urgent; one of the five confided to me numerous times of the need for money.) From experience, I know the following things sell: allegations of conspiracy, bashing the Jews, and sex. Writing of these things may and in my view is likely to distort one’s perspective on matters. Some if not all of these five are damaged souls. Whether it be things like substance abuse or sexual abuse or anger, one’s perspective again can be skewed and one’s emphasis on things misplaced thereby once again distorting the presentation of events. Also, the five have a real craving for attention, so they have to be dramatic and produce novelties. Again, these things stand in the way of fulfilling their duties in accordance with Inter Mirifica.
Until the episcopate takes charge and cautions the chatterers, the Church will continue to suffer in its American Captivity to the detriment of all. In the meantime, consumers of the chatterers’ content need to scrutinize what they are offered. This article, in summary form, offers a reason and a way to do so. This article is also an attempt to get the chatterers to comply with Inter Mirifica and offers a way forward for the chatterers to regulate their own behavior in line with that Decree and Catholic doctrine. I am calling on all the chatterers to make a “formal pledge…to observe…a respect for the moral law in the problems they encounter and in their activities.”[17]
Heck, it would be progress if the Catholic chatterers simply acknowledged Inter Mirifica.
[1] Inter Mirifica, in Vatican Council II The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery (Northport, New York: Costello Publishing company, 1992), 283.
[2] Ibid., 284-285
[3] Ibid., 285-286.
[4] Ibid., 286-287.
[5] Ibid., 287-288.
[6] Ibid., 287-288.
[7] Ibid., 288.
[8] Ibid., 288-289.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid., 289-290.
[11] Ibid., 291.
[12] Ibid., 291-292.
[13] John Cogley, “A Layman Reflects on the Council,” Columbia, September, 1964, as found in the papers of Francis J. Connell, Redemptorist House Archives, Baltimore Province, Brooklyn, New York.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Novak, The Open Church: Vatican II, Act II, 261-262.
[16] Dr. Jeff Mirus, “Infiltration: An Idiot’s Guide to the Problems of the Church,” May 31, 2019, Catholic Culture as accessed from https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/infiltration-idiots-guide-to-problems-church/ August 4, 2021.
[17] Inter Mirifica, cI, section 11, paragraph 2.