Decree on the Media of Social Communication Inter Mirifica

The pope governs with modern means of communication and absolute powers

In 2019 CE, the official home page of the Vatican remembers the foundation and recognition of the Vatican State by the Lateran Pact as an independent state under the sovereignty of the Holy See in 1929 together with the official inauguration of Vatican Radio by Pope Pius XI in 1931.[i] Vatican Radio and the government of the Holy See by “the Supreme Pontiff” are inseparable “Just four days after the creation of Vatican City, Pope Pius XI officially commissioned the famous Italian-born radio pioneer, Guglielmo Marconi to build the radio station inside the new state”.[ii] The signing of the Lateran Pact by Italy and the Holy See ended sixty years of hostile relations between the Papacy and the Italian government after the loss of the Papal States to Italy. The Lateran Pact facilitated the reentry of the Holy See into international diplomacy as an independent state. At that moment, Vatican Radio enabled the pope, absolute monarch of the Roman Catholic Church, to address millions of Catholic faithful and to broadcast the Gospel and information all over the world. Pope Pius XI recognized the effectiveness of “the Pope’s radio” as a precious instrument for his governing, teaching and sanctifying office for the Roman Catholic Church (ibid). In 2019, the Vatican calls Radio Vatican still “the radio of the pope” and “With nearly 40 editorial offices and languages spoken by colleagues from 60 nationalities, the words of the Pope and the activities of the Holy See are diffused to every latitude of the planet” (ibid).

Radio was not the first mass media used by the popes to spread the Gospel and to govern the Roman Catholic Church.

In the middle of the 15th century, Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press that permitted the circulation of information and new ideas across borders and regions. With the help of the printing press, Martin Luther was able to reach the masses. Widely circulating pamphlets and the effective production of affordable books provided information and knowledge that threatened the power of political and religious authorities. The popes adopted the use of modern means of communication very rapidly. In 1587, Pope Sixtus V established the Vatican Printing Press and in 1908, Pope Pius X established the Vatican Press within the walls of the Vatican City.[iii]  The Vatican Press prints the documents of the Holy See that is the official gazette Acta Apostolicae Sedis and prints the daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, which was founded in 1861. The editorial activity for the offices of the Roman Curia, for Roman Pontifical Universities, and for Catholic publications around the world is tremendous and, already in 1926, the Vatican Publishing House became an independent institution (ibid). In 1948, Pope Pius XII instituted the Pontifical Commission for Social Communication with the purpose of “following and evaluating, from the perspective of the Papal Magisterium, all the problems related to the sectors of cinema, radio, television and the printed dailies and periodicals”. The Pontifical Commission for Social Communication enjoyed growing importance. In 1958, Pope John XXIII elevated the Commission to an Office of the Holy See aggregated to the Secretariat of State, in 1964, Pope Paul VI constituted the Pontifical Commission for Social Communications that was elevated to become the Pontifical Council for Social Communications in 1989, always functioning as papal censorship and for preparing papal instructions (ibid).

In 2015, Pope Francis reorganized all pontifical institutions dealing with communication and created the Secretariat for Communication, as a Dicastery for Communication, “which is an integral part of the Roman Curia” (ibid). The Dicastery for Communication unites the Vatican Printing Press, Vatican Radio, the Holy See Press Office, the Pontifical Commission for Social Communications, the Vatican Television Center, the Vatican Internet Service and the Photo Service (ibid).

There are eleven superiors of the Dicastery for Communication, ten of them are lay people, one is a priest, and three of the lay superiors are women.[iv] The members of the Dicastery for Communication are cardinals, archbishops and three lay experts, but the superiors are from the laity. This is an extraordinary fact. The prefects of the Secretariat of State, of nine Congregations and of the other Dicasteries of the Roman Curia are cardinals.[v]

The case of Guglielmo Marconi, a pioneer of long-distance radio transmission, demonstrates that the popes did not hesitate to seek the collaboration of lay Catholics in order to organize their social communications. Journalists, technicians and other lay professionals were necessary to operate the social media of the popes. The social media helped the popes to preach the Gospel and transmit their personal messages to the faithful, reaching millions of Catholics all over the world. The consequences of this massive employment of the mass media had significant consequences. Professional Catholic lay women and men received a theological education and became aware of their existence as Christians and of their agency as autonomous members of the body of Christ. The efforts of the central government of the Roman Catholic Church to educate the laity and have them organized in religious, cultural and political movements following and realizing the instructions of the hierarchy finally led to an individualization and privatization of religious life. Millions of lay Catholic women, men and queer emancipated themselves from the absolute authority of the hierarchy on all matters of private and public life (A Altermatt, Urs. 1995. “Katholizismus: Antimodernismus mit modernen Mitteln?” In Eichstätter Beiträge. Schriftenreihe der Katholischen Universität Eichstätt, vol. 28, edited by Urs Altermatt, Heinz Hürten, and Nikolaus Lobkowicz, 33–50. 48. Regensburg: Pustet). From the middle of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century, the Roman Catholic Church for the first time in its history succeeded to systematically organize and discipline the religious life of the faithful. The means of modern communication and transport were essential to achieve this goal and to create “the Catholic milieu” that is a unified form of popular Catholicism based on a shared worldview and common norms for being a good Catholic man and woman in much of Europe and North America (ibid. 44). Already at the end of the 19th century the Catholic lay associations started to emancipate from clerical domination and influence (ibid. 45). Catholic lay associations, Catholic and Christian political parties and the press were modern means for the emancipation of the laity within the Roman Catholic Church (ibid). The Roman central government of the Church used the modern means of communication to sustain the antimodernist, antidemocratic and absolute power of the pope and his hierarchy and thereby contributed to the development of a self-aware and self-responsible laity who promoted emancipation from their domination by the clergy (ibid. 46).

History of the evolvement of the text for Inter Mirifica

The Office of the Holy See for Social Communication that was aggregated to the Secretariat of State and that oversaw the moral evaluation of the printed press, radio, television and films, oversaw preparing a scheme on social communication. The Secretariat of the State commissioned the Office for Social Communication to propose answers to the role of social communication for the Church. Could the modern means of social communication help the Church to observe the papal magisterium? How could the means of modern communication inform the conscience of the faithful according to Church norms, how would modern communication educate the moral conscience of the lay professionals working with the means of social communication and how would the means of modern communication contribute to the apostolate of the Church (Caprile, Giovanni. 1968. “Entstehungsgeschichte und Inhalt der vorbereiteten Schemata. Die Vorbereitungsorgane des Konzils.” In Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Vol. 3 of Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, edited by Herbert Vorgrimler, 594–726. 721. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder)?  In April 1962, the preparatory commission for a scheme on social communication sent a text to the central preparatory commission, received some suggestions for simplifying the text. The preparatory commission finished the adaption in June 1962, so that the scheme was ready to reach the Council Fathers for the upcoming first session of the Second Vatican Council (ibid). The text started identifying “Among the wonderful technological discoveries” in the present era “the press, movies, radio, television and the like”. These first words of the prepared text – in Latin “Inter mirifica technicae artis inventa” – open the final Decree on the Media of Social Communications that therefore the decree is titled Inter mirifica (ibid). The prepared text presented four chapters. The first chapter treats the doctrine of the Church concerning her responsibility for the observation of moral law in the media, the right of information, public opinion, art and morality, and the duties of the consumers and the producers of the media. The second chapter treats the media and the apostolate of the Church, the importance and the necessary material support for the pastoral of the media. The third chapter treats the norms for the clergy, religious and the faithful concerning initiatives and projects with the media of social communications, and finally the norms for the professionals working in the media of social communications. The fourth chapter describes the institutions and different types of the press and the media, and the duties for the producers and consumers of films, radio emissions, discs, tapes, advertisements, and posters (ibid). Due to the suggestions of the central preparatory commission, the first chapter of the prepared text for Inter Mirifica did not refer any more to canons of the Code of Canon Law (ibid). The Vatican Press released the name of the archbishop presiding the preparatory commission for the modern media and the names of the twenty members who were all bishops or priests (Caprile 1968, 720). The Vatican Press praised the necessary expertise and important contribution from lay professionals working in the media for the elaboration of the text and at the same time affirms as natural that these lay people have to stay anonymous (ibid). In 1962, the status of a lay man or women collaborating with an institution of the clerical Roman Curia was unofficial, indirect and invisible for the public. The president of the preparing commission of a document on the mass media Cardinal Cento from the Curia, and the vice presidents Cardinal Silva Henriquez from Chile and Archbishop O’Connor from the Curia were not interested in informing the public about the state of preparation for the upcoming Council (Beozzo, Oscar J. 1995. “Il clima esterno.” In Il cattolicesimo verso una nuova stagione. L`annuncio e la preparazione gennaio 1959 – settembre 1962. Vol. 1 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 381–428. 382. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

Numerous Catholic journalists pressed the Vatican to change its policy of secrecy and to inform the public about what is going on concerning the Council. In July 1961, the International Association of the Catholic Press had published a document claiming information about the upcoming Council (ibid). Only Cardinal Bea regularly informed the public with press conferences on what was happening and in 1961 Cardinal König had an encounter with journalists in Vienna in order to inform them about the Council (ibid. 383). English speaking journalists were happy to get information from the U.S. Bishops’ Press Panel that was supervised by the U.S. Bishops’ Conference (Famerée, Joseph. 1998. “Vescovi e diocese (5–15 novembre 1963).” In Il concilio adulto. Il secondo periodo e la seconda intersessione settembre 1963 – settembre 1964. Vol. 3 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 133–208. 193. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The international press got more and more impatient with the policy of secrecy of the Vatican, and the director of the Jesuits’ magazine “La Civiltà Cattolica”, Father Tucci, proposed John XXIII a regular publication of the chronology of the events of the preparation of the Council (Beozzo 1995, 382). Only in October 1962 John XXIII instituted an official press office at the Vatican that would release information on the Council, a moment that is considered a milestone in the public relations policies of the popes and the Vatican (ibid. 386).

The scheme on the means of modern communication was discussed very early in the first session of the Council, that is between November 23 and November 26, 1962 (Lamberigts, Mathijs. 1996. “Una Pausa: I mezzi di comunicazione sociale.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 295–308. 295. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Only 54 Council Fathers intervened in the debate, and most of them were Europeans (ibid. 297). The Council Fathers and their theologians were not yet aware of the inestimable importance of the new media for social communication for the Council and the Church in the modern world, although a few influential cardinals – Ruffini, Spellman, Bea, Suenens, Godfrey and Léger underlined the importance of the new media in the debate (ibid. 298). The prepared scheme got the approval of most of the speakers in the debate and there were view critiques. The critiques concerned the exaggerated length of the document and the rare consideration of the laity (ibid. 300). On November 27, 1962, there was a vote on a proposition to approve the scheme in general, to consider the suggestions and amendments of the Council Fathers in the redaction of the final text, and that the Office for social communication would work out pastoral instruction with the necessary practical norms. The same day, the scheme passed the vote with an overwhelming majority of 2138 votes in favor, 15 against and seven votes were not valid. During this first session of the Council, the relations with the press were still very superficial, disorganized and unprofessional. As a result of this lack of public relations, the document received very little attention from the mass media (ibid. 308).

During the first session of the Council in 1962, the Council Fathers took the scheme on the means of social communication lightly. After the heavy discussions and energy-consuming conflicts on the schemes on revelation and on unity with the Oriental Churches, the discussion of the scheme Inter Mirifica was calm and like a welcome opportunity for a refreshing pause (Famerée 1998, 193). During the first intersession, the Commission for the Means of Social Communication shortens the text from 40 pages to nine pages as the Council Fathers had requested. Only chapter one and two are still in the document and the conclusion proposes that a later instruction deals with the practical norms concerning the media. The commission did not change the substance of the document (ibid. 194–95). The final decree Inter Mirifica basically keeps chapters one and two from the prepared text and announces in the Appendices – that is Inter Mirifica 23, and 24 – that a future pastoral instruction will have to spell out the norms concerning the work of the clergy, religious, faithful and professionals in the media of social communications (Paul VI 1963. “Decree on the Media of Social Communications Inter Mirifica.” The Holy See).

On November 11, 1963, the Council Fathers receive the amended document, on November 14, 1963, the relator Stourm presented the text in the aula and on the same day, the chapters passed preliminary votes, still allowing for amendments (Famerée 1998, 196). Some Council Fathers approached the moderators of the Council and Döpfner, Suenens and Villot agreed that the document was still full of moralizing sentences of little substantial content and not really taking into consideration the laity (ibid. 197). Suddenly, in the aula emerged a resistance of the Council Fathers that wanted to block the final vote on the document in order for a fundamental revision (ibid. 198). Three catholic journalists warned the Council Fathers that the publication of the text will damage the credibility of the Council, and the experts Murray, Daniélou, Häring and Mejia judged the text as being authoritarian, out of touch with modern culture, and disregarding the freedom of the press (ibid. 199). More and more Council Fathers expressed their skepticism about the quality of the document, but it was too late to react and change the vote from November 27, 1962, that had approved the prepared scheme (ibid). All maneuvers to block a final vote failed, the amended text reached the aula on November 23, 1963, and on November 25, 1963, the final vote on the declaration on the means of social communications passed the declaration with 1,960 votes in favor and 164 negative votes (ibid. 205).

Commentary on Inter Mirifica

Inter Mirifica 1 and 2 form the Introduction of the Decree on the Media of Social Communications.

Inter Mirifica 1 welcomes the new media as “new avenues of communicating most readily news, views and teachings of every sort” and identifies the importance of these media with their reach of the masses and their influence on them.

Inter Mirifica 2 welcomes the new media on condition that they do not work “contrary to the plan of the creator” and that they help proclaiming the Gospel.

Inter Mirifica 3–12 is titled “On the Teaching of the Church” and constitute the first chapter.

Inter Mirifica 3 affirms that the Church uses the mass media to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and wants “to instruct men in their proper use”.

Inter Mirifica 4 describes the proper use of the media as the practice to “conscientiously” realize the norms of morality. Inter Mirifica 5 clarifies that in the context of the use of the mass media morality especially concerns the right use of “the right to information”; the right of information contributes to “the common good” and to “the welfare of the entire civil society” and “The proper exercise of the right to information” demands “the news itself that is communicated should always be true and complete, within the bounds of justice and charity”.

Inter Mirifica 5 does not affirm the Human Right of the freedom of the press but indeed restricts the right to information to news that obey “the laws of morality”, “for not all knowledge is helpful”. The laws of morality determine what knowledge is helpful and what knowledge is not helpful, and the laws of morality are not established according to the rule of Human Rights law but according to the teachings of the pope and the magisterium of the Church.

Inter Mirifica 6 submits art under the norms of morality of the Roman Catholic Church, “the Council proclaims that all must hold to the absolute primacy of the objective moral order”. The Council thought that the Roman Catholic Church has to watch over all production of art and the mass media and encourages the laity to protest anything that goes against the moral norms of the Church in the civil society.

Inter Mirifica 7 cautiously greets the narrative of the media’s “description or portrayal of moral evil”, and that they “reveal and glorify the grand dimensions of truth and goodness”. In the end, “given the baneful effect of original sin in men” the media are not trustworthy.

Inter Mirifica 8 shows that the Council is aware of the importance of the new media “Since public opinion exercises the greatest power and authority today in every sphere of life, both private and public”, and by moral control over the behavior of the individuals the Church wants to influence public opinion.

Inter Mirifica 9, 1 proposes the moral obligations of the faithful to avoid the consumption of media that contradicts moral teaching of the Church.

Inter Mirifica 9, 2 tells the faithful that they receive the moral code for their judgments on the media from the Church authority.

Inter Mirifica 10 exhorts the young to listen to their teachers and parents for instruction to avoid consumption of “morally harmful” media products.

Inter Mirifica 11, 1 exhorts “writers, actors, designers, producers, displayers, distributors, operators and sellers, as well as critics and all others who play any part in the production and transmission of mass presentations” to “never oppose the moral good” (Inter Mirifica 11, 2), and that “fitting reference” has to reign the presentation of “religious matters” (Inter Mirifica 11, 3).

Inter Mirifica 12, 1 tries to commit “The public authority” to direct the media to contribute to “the common good”.

Inter Mirifica 12, 2 reminds the public authority of the duty to watch over “public morals and the welfare of society” with the help of laws concerning the new media of social communications, and to especially protect the young (Inter Mirifica 12, 3).

Inter Mirifica 13 – 22 constitute chapter two and are titled “On the pastoral activity of the Church”.

Inter Mirifica 13, 1 invites all faithful of the Roman Catholic Church to participate in apostolic activity with the help of the new media of social communication. The faithful are not adult women, men and queer of equal dignity, freedom and rights, but they are addressed as “All the children of the Church”.

Inter Mirifica 13, 2 makes it clear that these children need pastors who teach them. The contribution of the “children” to the apostolic work consists in helping the pastors with their “technical, economic, cultural and artistic talents”. In Inter Mirifica there is an apostolate of the laity where the faithful women, men and queer proclaim the Christian faith and teach their brothers and sisters.

Inter Mirifica 14, 1 suggests “ecclesiastical authorities or Catholic laymen” should direct and edit “a truly Catholic press”, that is a press “in accord with natural law and Catholic teaching and precepts” and the faithful should “be advised to read” this press that is censured by the Catholic magisterium.

Special moral censorship is necessary in view of the films that the youth views. Radio and television programs have to be “suitable for families” and bring the listeners “to share in the life of the Church and learn religious truths” (Inter Mirifica 14, 2).

The art of drama “serves the cultural and moral betterment of audiences” (Inter Mirifica 14, 3), drama does not serve the empathy of the audience experiencing emotions that the actors inspire.

Inter Mirifica 15, 1 call for installing the proper “priests, religious and laymen” for the moral censorship of the media.

 “Laymen ought to be afforded technical, doctrinal and moral training” for their task as moral watchdogs, women and queer are not mentioned (Inter Mirifica 15, 2).

Critics have to prepare for commenting the “moral issues in their proper light” (Inter Mirifica 15, 3).

Inter Mirifica 16 encourages “Catholic schools at every level, in seminaries and in lay apostolate groups” to “present and explain Catholic teaching and regulations” with the help of the new media.

Inter Mirifica 17 exhorts “the Church’s children” that are adult women and men and not children, to consume only the media that “spread and defend the truth and foster Christian influence in human society”.

Inter Mirifica 18 suggests that the bishops instruct the faithful on their responsibility as regards the use of the new media on a certain day of the year.

Inter Mirifica 19 requests that the “Sovereign Pontiff” extends the office of the Secretariat for the Supervision of Publications and Entertainment.

Inter Mirifica 20 encourages the bishops to direct the “public apostolate” in their dioceses.

Inter Mirifica 21, 1 suggests the establishment of “national offices for affairs of the press, films, radio and television”.

Inter Mirifica 21, 2 says bishops should direct the offices and they may appoint lay experts to help them.

Inter Mirifica 22 affirms “national offices should co-operate among themselves on an international plane” and cooperate “with their own international Catholic associations” that “are legitimately approved by the Holy See alone and depend on it”.

Inter Mirifica 23 and 24 constitute the “Appendices” that announce a future pastoral instruction on the norms of the use of the new media and “all the Church’s children” will gladly accept them. The naïve wish of the Council Fathers to find obedient faithful followers for their paternalistic fantasies of a Roman Catholic construction of media content and use began collapsing already during the Second Vatican Council itself.

Theologians commented that Inter Mirifica 23 is the only important article in the weakest and most insignificant document of the Second Vatican Council, because article 23 demands a future pastoral instruction on the new media of social communications (Sander, Hans-Joachim. 2004. “Theologischer Kommentar zum Dekret über die sozialen Kommunikationsmittel Inter Mirifica.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol. 2, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 229–262. 2004. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). In 1971, Paul VI published the Pastoral Instruction Communio et Progressio and the Catholic theologians and journalists adopted this document because it accepted the theology of the Church as a communion, as the people of Go’d according to Lumen Gentium and because the instruction used the analysis of the modern world of Gaudium et Spes (ibid). The Catholic Magisterium, the Catholic theologians and professionals of the new media did not speak about Inter Mirifica, they were embarrassed and excluded the Decree from their discourses as irreparable (ibid). It is true, Inter Mirifica does not speak about the divine aspect of the Roman Catholic Church as the people of Go’d and as the Body of Christ of the faithful living in communion with each other. At the same time, Inter Mirifica speaks in almost all articles of the societal aspect of the Roman Catholic Church as an absolute monarchy under the pontifical authority of the pope who possesses the highest and most independent governing, teaching and sanctifying authority. For fifty years, Catholic male theologians, clergy and lay, preferred to interpret the documents of the Second Vatican Council without regarding the omnipresent affirmations concerning the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church and uncritically and unrealistically overestimated the affirmations of the divine aspect of the Church as the people of Go’d and the Body of Christ.

Inter Mirifica 5 restricts the freedom of the press and respects the right to information only to news that obey “the laws of morality”. These laws are established by the authoritarian teaching of the pope. After the positive preliminary votes on Inter Mirifica November 14, 1963, Catholic journalists warned the Council Fathers of the consequences of the suppression of the freedom of the press, that will inflict grave damage to the credibility of the Church. Many Council fathers opened their eyes to this critique and pleaded to correct the proposed text. The final vote on the Decree was not postponed, Paul VI announced in the Appendices of Inter Mirifica a future pastoral instruction on the norms to handle the media of social communication.

From the weakness of the Decree on the Media of Social Communication Inter Mirifica and the shame of the Council Fathers for their failure to amend the text followed, that from the future 15 documents of the Second Vatican Council only three documents point at the importance of social media for the pastoral work of the Roman Catholic Church. Ad Gentes 19, 2 advises the young Churches in the mission countries “The means of social communication are put to wise use at the opportune time”. Ad Gentes 26, 7 advises all missionaries using “the means of social communication, the importance of which should be highly appreciated by all”. Ad Gentes 31, is aware of the “insufficient supply of men and means” in the mission countries and therefore encourages the episcopal conferences to “pool their resources and found projects”. The list for such projects includes “seminaries; technical schools and schools of higher learning; pastoral, catechetical, and liturgical centers; as well as the means of social communication”. Ad Gentes 36, 3 affirms, “Modern means of social communication should be used to furnish” information for all faithful working in mission activity on “the present condition of the Church in the world”.

Gaudium et Spes 6, 4 assesses the importance of the modern means of social communication as “efficient media to contribute to the knowledge of events” as a typical element of “the situation of men in the modern world”. Gaudium et Spes 61, 3 recognizes that in the contemporary societies “the new means of cultural and social communication can foster a universal culture” but Gaudium et Spes never suggests to the Roman Catholic Church the use of the new means of social communication as an efficient pastoral, governing or teaching instrument.

The Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity does not use the term “means of social communication”, nor do Dei Verbum, Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Sacrosanctum Concilum, Gravissimum Educationis, Christus Dominus, Perfectae Caritatis, Presbyterorum Ordinis, Dignitatis Humanae, and Unitatis Redintegratum.

Only Optatam Totius 2, 5 suggests a “more intensive training of the faithful by preaching, by catechetical instructions or by the many media of social communication” in order to foster new priestly vocations. Pope John XXIII called in Pacem in Terris 90 for fact checks and disapproved of fake news for “Truth further demands that the various media of social communications made available by modern progress, which enable the nations to know each other better, be used with serene objectivity”. The Second Vatican Council did not adopt this prophetic warning from John XXIII.

In the 1990s, lay Catholic women, men and queer began to organize and demand Church reform according to the theology of the people of Go’d and the communion of all faithful in Jesus Christ. In 1995, “We are Church” started in Austria after the pedophilia scandal around Vienna’s Cardinal Groer. In the same year, We are Church collected 2.5 million signatures in Austria, Germany, and Southern Tyrol for a Church Referendum for Church reform. The Referendum called for “the creation of a Church of brothers and sisters, for full participation of women in all aspects of Church life”. It demanded “removal of the obligation of clerical celibacy; for a positive attitude towards sexuality and recognition of the primacy of an informed moral conscience; and for a message of joy and not threat or discrimination” (We Are Church International 2019. “History of We Are Church,” July 28). In 1996, the International movement We Are Church was founded in Rome. In 2020, We Are Church movement has a presence or is co-operating with similar groups in 40 countries all over the world (ibid). Since the Catholic Austrian bishops ignored the signatures of the Referendum and continued with the institutional discrimination of women, men and queer in the Roman Catholic Church, We Are Church decided to publicly ask for a dialogue with the bishops addressing to them a “Herd letter” (Plankensteiner-Spiegel, Maria (ed.). 1996. Liebe – Eros – Sexualität. “Herdenbrief” und Begleittexte.Thaur: Thaur GmbH). “For the first time in the history of the Roman Catholic Church”, the people of Go’d took the word; lay Catholic women, men and queer speak on the two central fields of conflict: sexuality and authority (ibid. 5). The “Pastoral letters” of the bishops, the official teaching of the Church hierarchy, regularly expresses themselves, now the people of Go’d take the word in a “Herd letter” (ibid).

The thousands of Catholic women, men and queer professional experts working in Church institutions and even leading institutions of the Roman Pontifical Curia of the Vatican like the Dicastery for Communication are not allowed to give their signature for a document calling for Church reform like the Herd letter of the movement We Are Church.  The Dicastery for Communication unites the Vatican Printing Press, Vatican Radio, the Holy See Press Office, the Pontifical Commission for Social Communications, the Vatican Television Center, the Vatican Internet Service and the Photo Service and all these institutions serve the absolute monarch of the Roman Catholic Church that is the pope. There is no freedom of press, there is no possibility to live queer partnerships openly, and there is no way of speaking freely according to one’s Christian conscience if one wants to keep one’s job in the Vatican or an institution of the Roman Catholic Church in the world.

In this situation we need the consolation from Revelation 21, 4: “God shall wipe away all tears: ... there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, ... for the former things are passed away”. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit empowers the faithful to care that the things of discrimination and oppression in the Roman Catholic Church “are passed away” anyways.

[i] “February 12, 1931, the day Vatican Radio was born,” Vatican News, https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-02/pope-pius-xi-vatican-radio-anniversary.html (accessed June 3, 2020).

[ii] “February 12, 1931, the day Vatican Radio was born,” Vatican News, https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-02/pope-pius-xi-vatican-radio-anniversary.html (accessed June 3, 2020).

[iii] “History of the Dicastery for Communication,” Dicastery for Communication, http://www.comunicazione.va/en/chi-siamo/storia.html (accessed June 3, 2020).

[iv] “Superiors of the Dicastery for Communication,” Dicastery for Communication, http://www.comunicazione.va/en/chi-siamo/struttura/superiori-del-dicastero.html (accessed June 3, 2020).

[v] “The Roman Curia,” The Holy See, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/index.htm (accessed June 3, 2020).