Reflections On The Papal Encyclical Process
[These thoughts, written in October 1993, consider how process affects credibility.]
I have been reading about the Pope's new encyclical. I look forward to deeper reflection on it in America, Commonweal, The Tablet, and other journals, and seeing the text; but some thoughts about communication have already surfaced in my mind.
1. As communication scholarship now teaches, the meaning-making we all do (including the Pope), is very much the product of our culture. He, too, is the product of his culture: his studies, his personality, his teachers, his previous church experience, etc. For each of us, including the Pope, God builds on our own unique nature and cultural history, as we all contribute to building the Kingdom. However, any statement by any Pope, reflects an interpretation of our culture that is, itself, culturally bound by our own personal attempt to make meaning out of today's world. Just as Thomas Jefferson's attitude toward slavery was a culturally bound attitude, while his struggle with defining human rights, in the face of the institution of slavery, was his unique attempt to deal with truth and humanity’s ideals.
2. To communicate credibly one must listen. This is true even of our prayer life: in addition to speaking to God verbally, we must be quiet and let God be with us in the silence from which we gain so many insights. And, within the human family itself, we have -- thank God -- developed to a point in history where we can see the need for discourse in our deliberations. In the West, this is based on our history of Plato and Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas’s use of the dialogic in building scholastic philosophy, the Enlightenment, and the growth of the modern scientific method. The East and woman's intuitive way of learning are teaching us that collaborative insights represent another way of communicating. But all of this requires sincere attention to feedback. Rather than think about the content of the encyclical, I reflect here upon the communication process. If discourse is prohibited, a refusal to listen can be devastating in the search for truth. If discussion had been cut off in other arenas, we might still hold slaves and believe the earth is the center of the universe.
3. In addition to aborting the search for authentic truth, communication that will not allow discourse to continue suffers in credibility. It is "top-down" in an age that has committed itself, in many places throughout the world, to listening to the grass roots. To be credible in such a world, the church should allow dialogue. Especially with theologians, who are the research and development arm of the church.
Dialogue is messy. It is cumbersome. It requires strong voices urging discipline and saying the difficult things we all should hear. But the difficult messages (like "Come, Follow Me") must co-exist with all the other messages, and, as Vatican II said, must interact with, and be enriched by, voices of the world.
4. How does one deal, then, with a world which is "wired" and in which many discordant (even evil) messages conflict? With a unique and challenging message, not with an authoritarian one. With credibility, not with crushing the opposition.