Inter Mirifica 2

Modern methods of communication can be of great benefit, and of great harm when misused. This is nothing new.

The Church recognizes that these media, if properly utilized, can be of great service to (humankind), since they greatly contribute to (human) entertainment and instruction as well as to the spread and support of the Kingdom of God. The Church recognizes, too, that (people) can employ these media contrary to the plan of the Creator and to their own loss. Indeed, the Church experiences maternal grief at the harm all too often done to society by their evil use. Hence, this sacred Synod, attentive to the watchful concern manifested by the Supreme Pontiffs and Bishops in a matter of such great importance, judges it to be its duty to treat of the principal questions linked with the media of social communication. It trusts, moreover, that the teaching and regulations it thus sets forth will serve to promote, not only the eternal welfare of Christians, but also the progress of all (humankind).

As with many other documents, the Church has hope on two fronts here. First, that the welfare of believers will benefit. Second, the Council is always solicitous of possible benefits for the whole human culture.

Before we delve deeper, any thoughts come to mind thus far?

About catholicsensibility

Todd lives in the Pacific Northwest, serving a Catholic parish as a lay minister.
This entry was posted in Inter Mirifica. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Inter Mirifica 2

  1. Liam says:

    Well, I think example is the best teacher. And if progressives want to teach conservatives, we’d better lead by example and employ tit-for-tat and mirroring techniques for situations where communication has willfully broken down *and* where such techniques have a reasonable chance for success. (Sound a little like Just War Doctrine? Indeed, for a reason. Since violence starts in the soul, monitoring that violence precedes any attempts to constrain more lethal violence. If one ascribes to the pursuit of peace, this better not be on the periphery of one’s vision.)

    As you know from bitter experience, I tend to focus my criticisms on things such (1) self-contradiction, and (2) self-subversion in rhetorical excess, because I believe those kinds of techniques are most likely to be engaged by people in a constructive way, as they are actually intended to *help* people make their point *better* and *more effective*.

    Of course this doesn’t mean I am free from sins of pride, arrogance, and lack of charity in doing so either!

    After all, probably more evil is done in this world with intentions to do good (as we tend then to be less constrained by a questioning conscience) than with express intentions to do evil.

    A good thing to remember this first week of Lent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s