Frances Forde Plude

The Episcopal Conference In The Communications Marketplace: Issues And Challenges For Catholic Identity And Ecclesiology

By Brian Lucas, S.T.L.

[Father Lucas has served as General Secretary of the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference. He has qualifications in law, media, and theology. There has been some controversy in Australia about his administrative role; however, this is a valuable documented study of the legal and communication aspects of bishops’ conferences.]

Abstract

This paper involves a theological reflection on what communication practices, technologies, and patterns mean for the life and identity of the Church.

In particular it deals with the role of the Bishops’ Conference in the area of social communications and the tensions that arise regarding the respective roles of the diocesan bishop and the Episcopal Conference, including lay heads of ecclesial agencies, in presenting “the face of the Church” in the public forum. Practical resolution of these tensions must respect the ecclesiology that determines the teaching role of the bishops and the collegial dimension of the episcopacy. 

The paper is divided into two sections:

1. The Church as “visible institution” and the ecclesiological and juridical foundations for identifying those who represent it in the public forum

2. The Episcopal Conference as an expression of episcopal collegiality and a voice in the communications marketplace.

1. The Church as “visible institution” and the ecclesiological juridical foundations for identifying those who represent it in the public forum.

Our starting point in understanding how the Church is a visible institution, is the well-known passage from paragraph 8 of Lumen Gentium which described the Church as “constituted and organized in the world as a society”, and “is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.” The appendix refers to “hierarchical communion” and notes:[1] 

…hierarchical communion with the head and members of the church is required. Communion is a notion which is held in high honor in the ancient Church (and also today, especially in the East). However, it is not understood as some kind of vague disposition, but as an organic reality which requires a juridical form and is animated by charity.

The Church exists in space and time. The Church has a formal structure or juridical form, and this is most often seen in its hierarchical expression, namely, in the office of the pope and the college of bishops.

This is not the only means whereby the Church is seen to exist in the world. The Church is truly all of Christ’s faithful as the introductory paragraph to Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity set out:[2] 

To intensify the apostolic activity of the people of God, the most holy synod earnestly addresses itself to the laity, whose proper and indispensable role in the mission of the Church has already been dealt with in other documents.[3] The apostolate of the laity derives from their Christian vocation and the Church can never be without it. Sacred Scripture clearly shows how spontaneous and fruitful such activity was at the very beginning of the Church (cf. Acts 11:19-21; 18:26; Rom. 16:1-16; Phil. 4:3).

All have a responsibility to make Christ present in the world including through the effective use of the means of social communication:[4]

All the children of the Church should join, without delay and with the greatest effort in a common work to make effective use of the media of social communication in various apostolic endeavors, as circumstances and conditions demand. 

The way in which the Church is present has varied throughout history. We can begin with the small gathering of believers who went to the Temple every day and who met for prayer, fellowship. and the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42 – 47).

Even those expressions of faith that were intended to be private, found public expression, as St Athanasius wrote of the hermit Antony:[5] 

For not from writings, nor from worldly wisdom, nor through any art, was Antony renowned, but solely from his piety towards God. That this was the gift of God no one will deny. For from whence into Spain and into Gaul, how into Rome and Africa, was the man heard of who abode hidden in a mountain, unless it was God who makes His own known everywhere, who also promised this to Antony at the beginning? For even if they work secretly, even if they wish to remain in obscurity, yet the Lord shows them as lamps to lighten all, that those who hear may thus know that the precepts of God are able to make men prosper and thus be zealous in the path of virtue.

Later through the monasteries, cathedrals, and other material expressions of Catholic life, the presence of the Church was pervasive. Even in what is now regarded as a “secular age” there are ample manifestations of the Church’s presence in the world, notwithstanding the pressures to confine religious faith to the private sphere.

This “institutional” presence of the Church is often misunderstood and misrepresented. The words “institution” and “hierarchy” generally invite pejorative connotations, certainly in the Australian culture which prides itself on its egalitarianism. Yet the lived experience of people is that the Church comprises many institutions of which they are rightly proud. In Australia we have 1700 Catholic schools, a network of public and private hospitals, aged care and welfare agencies, and publications. Clearly the Church is an institution of institutions. It has a visible dimension and is recognised as such by its members and the community at large.

The Church that gives itself the name Catholic Church, and is often described as the Roman Catholic Church, claims that brand and the identity that goes with it. It accepts there is an institutional aspect to its existence.

At the present time there is a general mood in the community that shies away from institutional religion or “denominationalism.” Many people prefer a nebulous broad-based Christianity without structure or organisation.

On that question, this comment by Dr Richard Lennan is helpful:[6]

Like any group of people that is more than a random gathering, the people who form the Church need to be able to identify one another, to know what binds them together as a group, to have opportunities and means to share their life together, to be able to resolve differences, and also to pass on their faith.

It seems clear that there has to be some external basis for identifying a community, or particular activities, or institutions as “Catholic.” Something is not “Catholic” just because it wants to say it is. 

We need to consider, however, what it is about the Church’s visibility that constitutes its identity. How is a Catholic school recognised as Catholic? If a bishop speaks on television, is he seen to represent the whole Catholic Church? When leading lay Catholics comment on church or secular affairs, are they representing “the Church?”

Elsewhere I have offered some thoughts on the role of bishops in defining, safeguarding, and promoting “Catholic mission and identity”, or what one might call the “Catholic” brand.[7]

Bishops have a responsibility to guard and protect the deposit of faith, but how, in a practical sense, do they identify an association, or institution or activity as “Catholic”? How does the Church communicate this “Catholic identity?” 

A useful starting point in responding to these types of question is the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Church law is the practical result of theological reflection on the Church’s self- understanding. That self-understanding includes an awareness of a distinctive identity and presence in the world. Church law provides a mechanism for regulating that identity.

• Canon 216 acknowledges that all Christ’s faithful, since they share the Church’s mission, have a right to promote and support apostolic action. It then says, “no initiative, however, can lay claim to the title “catholic” without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.”[8]

• Canon 300 requires that, “no association may call itself ‘catholic’ except with the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority, in accordance with canon 312.” 

• Canon 312 identifies as the competent authority, the Holy See for international associations, the Episcopal Conference for national associations, and the diocesan bishop for local associations.[9]

These canons presume there is such a thing as a Catholic identity and provide a mechanism to safeguard it.

This has its parallels in the secular world where brand protection is fundamental to corporate good governance. Secular laws relating to trademarks, logos, business names, “passing off”, misleading and deceptive conduct, restraints of trade, and anticompetitive practices, all presuppose the right of an entity to have a brand, a distinctive identity, and to safeguard its brand and prevent others using or abusing it.

Catholic identity can be compromised, or at least obscured, depending on how individual members and particular organisations or institution relate to the rest of the Church, how they relate to ecclesial authority, and how they conduct their affairs.  

Archbishop Michael Miller, Secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education, in a paper delivered on 31 October 2005, at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, said this:[10]

On several occasions Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger expressed his views on the role and importance of Catholic institutions. In one place he argued, for example, that it might be better for the Church not to expend her resources trying to preserve institutions, whether universities, hospitals or social service agencies, if their Catholic identity had been seriously compromised. 

By way of example, we understand the importance of the Church’s educational institutions in presenting an image of the Church. There are specific canons relating to the catholicity of schools.[11] Bishops have an important supervisory role even with respect to schools conducted by religious institutes.[12] An important question is the connection between the Church’s mission and its religious identity.[13] In simple terms, people may ask whether this or that institution is “authentically Catholic.”

In the beginning, as we understand from St Paul’s letters, (e.g. 2 Tim 4:3-4), the community understood that there was such a thing as “false teaching” and there were “false teachers” who were a threat to the community’s cohesion and identity.

Very early a mechanism was devised to protect the community, safeguard the faith and identify error. That responsibility, in the very broadest sense, we can associate today with the bishops. They have a supervisory authority as illustrated, set out, in the canons mentioned above.

The question however is not so much what is or is not “Catholic” but, rather, what image of the Catholic Church should be presented.

Again using the example of Catholic educational institutions - Is the Church catering in its educational institutions for the wealthy elite, for an upwardly mobile middle class, or is it providing an education to those marginalized in society who otherwise may not have access to education?

These three possibilities will portray three different images of the Church and the Church’s identity and its identification with one individual or group will be critical to how others understand its proclamation of the message of Jesus.

Article 9 of the Bull of Induction for the Jubilee Year put the following perspective on the Church’s visible presence:[14] 

Having received from Christ the power to forgive in his name (cf. Mt 16:19; Jn 20:23), the Church is in the world as the living presence of the love of God who leans down to every human weakness in order to gather it into the embrace of his mercy.

Our challenge in the way we use the means of social communication to communicate something of the Church’s identity is to be able to present a face of the Church that reveals the face of Jesus.

Identifying error and rooting out heresy has its place, but Catholic identity is more than just orthodoxy of doctrine. The Church as institution, and the institutions within the Church, should be a means whereby the visible dimension of the Catholic community becomes known, and known authentically, as a community that is engaged in all that serves mankind’s true well- being.[15] Catholic health and education institutions reflect the very nature of the Church. As Pope Benedict has expressed it:[16] 

The true subject of the various Catholic organizations that carry out a ministry of charity is the Church herself—at all levels, from the parishes, through the particular Churches, to the universal Church. 

The bishops have a role to safeguard the faith, and all Catholics, individually and through the institutions they manage, have a role to promote the faith. In practice, however, who will present this face of the Church, the face of Jesus?

From the perspective of the public in general, and politicians and the professional media in particular, any person with any official position in the Church is seen to be able to speak on behalf of the whole Church. 

Comments made via any medium, anywhere, can be taken to apply to the Church across a nation and even internationally. It is particularly newsworthy if Church officials can be seen to be disagreeing, even if the disagreements are not real. It suits politicians if the views of the Church are not seen to be unanimous, for they can be largely ignored or, at least, played off against one another. Hence the Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello was able, however jokingly, to refer to the “church of the bishops and the church of the Jesuits.” 

Because it is important for an organisation to speak clearly with one voice at critical times, efficient, modern organisations appoint clearly identifiable spokespersons. Their message is clear, unequivocal, and not interrupted by comments from other members of the organisation, no matter how well intended such comments may be. One clear voice in a crowded room is more effective than many chattering voices, even if such voices are in agreement.

In some areas of Church life, that involve highly technical and specialised knowledge, it is most properly the role of expert laity to present the Church’s position. The Church’s practical experience in the areas of health care, social welfare, and education, qualify her to speak in the public forum. It is often the case that certain individuals within the Church are recognised as experts and are called on by the media to participate in the discussion of areas of public policy that relate to their work. 

In Australia, if an issue arises concerning public policy in health care, media will invariably look for comment to the Chief Executive of Catholic Health Australia, which is the peak association of Catholic Health Care organisations. When he does comment he is “the face of the Church.” Yet there is no clear juridical basis for this role. His competence to speak comes from his expertise, not from any specific episcopal mandate. Generally, this does not present any problem in practice because of the competence of the individual, but structurally there is no mechanism for any “quality control” of the image of the Church presented in this way.

The Episcopal Conference is by its nature a bureaucratic structure. The various Bishop’s Commissions can gather research and information and assemble experts in particular areas of church life. It is not so much the Episcopal Conference then that presents an identity of the Church but rather the group of experts it gathers. Hence, I believe it is a mistake to regard the Episcopal Conference as a right institution to represent the Church’s identity. It is the role of Episcopal Conference staff to assist the national initiatives of the bishops.[17] There is no reason why this cannot extend to allowing lay experts, employed by the Conference, to speak on the bishops’ behalf, and at their request, when matters requiring particular expertise are being discussed. In doing so they are not usurping the teaching role of bishops but promoting it. The message is the bishops’ message and the Church’s message, not the message of the spokesperson. 

Bishops are free to speak publicly. Generally, however, the good of the whole can be best served by supporting the collegial needs and strategic objectives of the wider Church.

The Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops says:[18]

Ecclesial communion will lead the Bishop to work constantly for the common good of the diocese, mindful that this is subordinated to the good of the universal Church…

One of the few areas of competence that the Second Vatican Council and later the Code of Canon Law, has given to Episcopal Conferences concerns radio and television. Some Canons describe the respective roles of the individual bishops and the Episcopal Conference of bishops regarding media. These include:

• Canon 772 §1 The norms issued by the diocesan bishop concerning the exercise of preaching are to be observed by all.

• Canon 772 §2 The prescriptions of the conference of bishops are to be observed in giving radio and television talks on Christian doctrine which “recognises both the tremendous influence of these modern media and the fact that they often carry a message well beyond the territorial boundaries of one diocese or even of a large region”[19] 

• Canon 822 §1 The pastors of the Church, employing a right which belongs to the Church in fulfilling its responsibility, are to endeavour to make use of the instruments of social communication. This canon “admonishes the pastoral leaders of the Church (here meaning the bishops) to do their best to use the instruments of social communications (the press, cinema, radio, television, and similar mass media) as aids in carrying out the Church’s mission of teaching.[20]

• Canon 831 §2 It is the responsibility of the conference of bishops to establish norms concerning the requirements for clerics and members of religious institutions to take part in radio or television programs which deal with questions concerning Catholic teaching or morals. This recognizes the importance of the electronic media as well as the fact that they transcend diocesan boundaries.[21]

A whole section of the Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops deals with the role of the bishop and social communications (Chapter V section IV), but there is little practical guidance as to how the Episcopal Conference might deal with this canonical responsibility. 

For preaching, norms can be promulgated by the diocesan bishop as this activity has limited reach. The wide coverage of the electronic media, beyond diocesan boundaries, meant that it was appropriate for the Episcopal Conference to be the instrumentality to regulate participation by clerics and religious and to make provisions relating to everyone who expounds Christian teaching in those media. Few Episcopal Conferences have promulgated such regulations in any significant way, other than generally to require that the participant have the permission of his or her proper Ordinary. For example, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has decreed that permission is required from the diocesan bishop of the place of original broadcast. It is problematic how effective such norms are in assisting the community to identify what is authentic. It fails to address the fundamental problem of identifying who will truly represent the face of the Church on the particular issue. There will be as many voices as there are diocesan bishops giving permissions.

The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference declined to make any regulations at the time it prepared its Complementary Norms following the promulgation of the new Code. In 1995 it again considered the matter and adopted the recommendation of Bishops Committee for the Media “not to establish a set of norms for clerics and religious to take part in radio and television programmes which concern Catholic doctrine or morals as such norms would be impossible to implement and would be interpreted by some as an unacceptable form of censorship.”[22]  

As a consequence, the presentation of the Catholic position in the traditional electronic media, and through the new forms of social media, is generally unregulated and largely out of the control of those who are ultimately responsible for safeguarding the faith.

It is a common experience in Australia, and probably in other places, that media make their own choices about who will represent the Church. If there is a matter of significant public controversy involving the Church the media will look for commentators that present divergent opinions. Conflict is at the heart of what is usually newsworthy. Media may want something “official” and for them that usually means the bishops, or at least a cleric. They will set that against other dissenting views, usually of other, high profile clergy, religious or lay commentators. These commentators will claim that their view is the truly authentic “Catholic” view. The usual stereotypes of a disengaged, out of touch hierarchy, unwilling to change to meet the needs of the modern world, will come to the fore. This will be set against the truly grass roots, charismatic, empowered by the Spirit, real church of the people. 

As we might expect the result is often confusion, and, at worst, an undermining of the credibility of the Church to teach with authority.

Not only is there this tension between the role of the hierarchy and lay experts, another problem that must be faced is the divergent views that exist within the hierarchy. How do we manage to present a clear Catholic identity even when those who are most visibly associated with the Church, the bishops, are themselves not of one mind on a particular matter? In an article in the Pittsburgh Diocesan Catholic newspaper on 26 August 2005, Bishop Donald Wuerl (as he then was) wrote:[23]

Actions taken by one bishop within a diocese can have immediate national impact and affect the bishops of the rest of the dioceses throughout the country, especially neighboring dioceses which share the same media market.  

The presenting issue for these comments was the controversy about excluding certain politicians from Holy Communion.

Into this melting pot of the communications marketplace with many voices calling for recognition of what is truly Catholic we need to consider if the Episcopal Conference has a role that may assist in resolving these tensions.

To that question we now turn. 

2. The Episcopal Conference as an expression of episcopal collegiality and a voice in the marketplace.

In most places the Episcopal Conference is not usually seen as an institution that either can or does represent a common view. What we must understand about an Episcopal Conference is that it is a bureaucratic convenience established to enable bishops, in a particular territory to work collegially. It is a mechanism that may be useful so that the message of the Church can be presented in a coherent and uniform fashion across the territory in circumstances where that it is important.

If a bishop on the east coast gives a talk on the doctrine of the Trinity, one can be reasonably confident that a bishop on the west coast would say something similar. One or other may have greater theological expertise and be able to give an address on the subject with more, or less, expertise and theological depth. The subject matter itself, however, is unlikely to be contentious.

The issues that do cause contention are generally in the area of public policy and the application of church teaching to particular social, pastoral and political situations. In this context, the Episcopal Conference could become a mechanism for the bishops collectively to discern, first, whether or not the subject matter requires public comment, and, secondly, if it does, to discern both the content and form of the message. 

The current reality is that an individual bishop, or some lay expert or commentator will be presented by the media as the authentic source for local media and what is said will be reported more or less widely depending on the nature of the issue.

Need this reality continue? Are there opportunities for the Episcopal Conference to be more pro-active in presenting, preserving, and promoting the identity of the Church? 

The foundational sources for dealing with the meaning of collegiality and role of Episcopal Conferences are well known. Various commentators who have written on the history of Episcopal Conferences take the meetings of the Bishops in Germany, Austria, Bavaria, Italy, and Ireland in the middle years of the 19th century as their starting point.[24]  

The conciliar documents Lumen Gentium[25] and Christus Dominus[26] affirmed the historical link between the local churches. Meetings on a national basis were a contemporary expression of an ancient practice in the church where bishops of a region gathered in a form of council or synod. They addressed contemporary problems they shared, in common. They were a practical experience of, and exercise of, collegiality. 

However, the theological understanding of the Episcopal Conference as an ecclesial structure, and its role in expressing and promoting episcopal collegiality, is not fully developed.  

In one view: [27]

It can appear paradoxical that on the one hand there is general consensus confirmed by the extraordinary synods of 1969 and 1985, popes, theologians and canonists in affirming the “pastoral usefulness” or even more the “necessity” of Episcopal Conferences for the church in the present circumstances and on the other hand there is a great disparity of opinion when it is a question of clarifying their theological status more precisely. 

The apostolic letter Apostolos Suos noted the history of how Episcopal Conferences have developed and it identified, but did not fully resolve, issues relating to the relationship between them and the local diocesan bishops, as can be seen in the following extracts: [28]

(3) Without prejudice to the power which each Bishop enjoys by divine institution in his own particular Church, the consciousness of being part of an undivided body has caused Bishops throughout the Church's history to employ, in the fulfilment of their mission, means, structures and ways of communicating which express their communion and solicitude for all the Churches, and prolong the very life of the College of the Apostles: pastoral cooperation, consultation, mutual assistance, etc.

(5) In 1966, Pope Paul VI, by the Motu Proprio Ecclesiae Sanctae, called for Episcopal Conferences to be established wherever they did not yet exist; those already existing were to draw up proper statutes; and in cases where it was not possible to establish a Conference, the Bishops in question were to join already existing Episcopal Conferences; Episcopal Conferences comprising several nations or even international Episcopal Conferences could be established. Several years later, in 1973, the Pastoral Directory for Bishops stated once again that “the Episcopal Conference is established as a contemporary means of contributing in a varied and fruitful way to the practice of collegiality. These Conferences admirably help to foster a spirit of communion with the Universal Church and among the different local Churches. Finally, the Code of Canon Law, promulgated by me on January 25, 1983, established specific norms (Canons 447-459) regulating the objectives and the powers of Episcopal Conferences, as well as their erection, membership and functioning. The collegial spirit which inspired the establishment of Episcopal Conferences and guides their activity is also the reason why Conferences of different countries should cooperate among themselves, as the Second Vatican Council recommended and the subsequent canonical legislation reaffirmed.

(6) Following the Second Vatican Council, Episcopal Conferences have developed significantly and have become the preferred means for the Bishops of a country or a specific territory to exchange views, consult with one another and cooperate in promoting the common good of the Church: “in recent years they have become a concrete, living and efficient reality throughout the world.” Their importance is seen in the fact that they contribute effectively to unity between the Bishops, and thus to the unity of the Church, since they are a most helpful means of strengthening ecclesial communion. Even so, the growing extent of their activities has raised some questions of a theological and pastoral nature, especially with regard to their relationship to the individual Diocesan Bishops.

Practical guidance for the purpose and operation of Episcopal Conferences is found in the 2004 Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, Apostolorum Successores[29] which updated the 1973 text Ecclesiae Imago.

The analysis of the relationships within the college of bishops has generally concentrated on the respective roles of the diocesan bishops and the supreme pastor. This is seen in Pastores Gregis.[30]  

Some pose the question in terms of priority and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith used these words in describing the universal Church:[31]

It is not the result of the communion of the Churches, but, in its essential mystery, it is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual, particular Church.

The criticism by Cardinal Walter Kasper of this view is well known.[32] Cardinal Edward Cassidy, formerly President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has proposed a solution to the dilemma of how a bishop participates in the College of Bishops while being a pastor and responding to the needs and issues of his local Church in the light of his own experience as a papal representative:[33]

I have no doubt that the problem, and the solution, to the dilemma indicated above is to be found principally in the mentalities of those exercising authority at both levels, the local and the universal.

The issue of the relationship between bishops at the local level and the universal church is only one part of the complex reality of collegiality. What requires further study is a better understanding of how bishops relate to each other. What is yet to be resolved is how the Episcopal Conference might be able to express the affectus collegialis, in the concrete reality of diverse perspectives on practical issues.

The Episcopal Conference cannot replace the role of the diocesan bishop as the one who proclaims the faith of the Church, but we should ask the question whether, if well used, it may add to that role. Since the agreed role of the Episcopal Conference is to provide a forum for common action, can the local bishops use this structure for developing policies and strategies so that the means of social communications are used effectively in proclaiming the gospel and presenting the Catholic position on important public issues?  

Apostolos Suos is clear in limiting the role of the Episcopal Conference in the exercise of an authentic magisterium:[34]

The very nature of the teaching office of Bishops requires that, when they exercise it jointly through the Episcopal Conference, this be done in the plenary assembly. Smaller bodies —the permanent council, a commission or other offices—do not have the authority to carry out acts of authentic magisterium either in their own name or in the name of the Conference, and not even as a task assigned to them by the Conference.

The teaching office of bishops, however, is not limited to the exercise of the authentic magisterium. Bishops teach simply by their presence and inevitably Church institutions, and the lay faithful associated with them, “teach” whenever they speak and often simply by their presence.

Father Avery Dulles SJ (as he then was) commented on the issue of the teaching role of the Episcopal Conference in the context of a broader commentary on their role:[35] 

I conclude, therefore, that regional bodies are needed for the effective functioning of the pastoral magisterium. This could be for an area either smaller or larger than the nation, but for the United States the national area seems generally appropriate. National organs have assumed overwhelming importance in politics, the professions, industry, and opinion making. Nearly all churches in this country have national offices. For dealing with the federal government, for ecumenical contacts and for public relations it is almost indispensable to have national agencies for the Catholic Church (emphasis added).

This paper was written in 1988 and the references to mobility of people and rapid communications take on an even greater urgency in our time. The power of the internet is such that it is simply impossible to confine comments that are made locally, about local issues, to any geographical region. While those comments are usually not acts of the authentic magisterium, they have a powerful impact on how the community will assess the Catholic identity of the institutions or organisations involved.

The idea that the role of the Church in its relationship with mass media needs some form of national co-ordination did not begin with Vatican II. 

Vigilanti Cura proposed that each country establish an office to rate films and protect morals and there is specific reference to a national office and a single centre of responsibility:[36]

Therefore, it will be necessary that in each country the Bishops set up a permanent national reviewing office in order to be able to promote good motion pictures, classify the others, and bring this judgment to the knowledge of priests and faithful. It will be very proper to entrust this agency to the central organisation of Catholic Action which is dependent on the Bishops. At all events, it must be clearly laid down that this service of information, in order to function organically and with efficiency, must be on a national basis and that it must be carried on by a single centre of responsibility (emphasis added).

A national approach to the means of social communications would become, and remains, an important but contentious issue for the Church in Australia. A national media office for the Australian bishops was a long time coming. The story is one of uncertainty, delay, and anxiety about expense. The process exemplifies the constant tension between the roles of national and local Church structures. The main elements of that story illustrate something of the complexity of proposing that an Episcopal Conference can be a means of better presenting a consistent presence of the Church through the media.

Inter Mirifica reiterated the requirement of Vigilanti Cura for a national office but expanded beyond cinema to include all media:[37] 

Since an effective apostolate on a national scale calls for unity of planning and resources, this sacred Synod decrees and orders that national offices for affairs of the press, films, radio and television be established everywhere and given every aid. ......In each country the direction of such offices should be entrusted to a special committee of Bishops, or to a single Bishop. Moreover, laymen who are experts in Catholic teaching and in these arts or techniques should have a role in these offices.

In 1953 the Australian Hierarchy rejected the idea of a central bureau for broadcasting proposed in a report which has been presented by the Committee for Education.[38]

At their meeting in April 1965 the bishops explicitly rejected a proposal by the Catholic Press Association that, “a National Catholic Press Office be established as soon as possible to implement in Australia the provision of section 21 of the Vatican Council Decree of (sic) Mass Media.” The Minutes record that “Conference gave sympathetic consideration to the proposal but regretted that it was unable to undertake such a financial burden.”[39] On six further occasions the Conference considered a national press office but did not proceed.

In August 1971, at the same meeting as the bishops decreed that Communio et Progressio be published and “widely distributed”, a motion “that the recommendation of the Catholic Press Association for the establishment of a National Catholic Press and Information Office be accepted by Conference” was defeated but with the decision to be reviewed in January 1972.[40]

Again, on numerous occasions through the 1970s and early 1980s the proposal was on the agenda but not considered “opportune.” Bishop Philip Kennedy, auxiliary bishop in Adelaide, was one who championed the cause but a major concern was expressed by the larger Archdioceses who did not want to “pay twice” for a national office which might be at the expense of their own diocesan communications works.

A major report on the media apostolate by Fr Paul Duffy SJ gave the idea of a national office more impetus.[41] This comprehensive study, running to 141 pages with a detailed bibliography, surveyed all aspects of the Church’s media apostolate. The issues it raised in 1987 are still largely unresolved and few of its 16 recommendations were ever taken up seriously.

Eventually in 1989 Mary Newport was appointed as the first national media officer and she has been followed by Jackie Brady, Debra Vermeer and Beth Doherty. The Communications Office of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference consists of one person, with a second part-time position held by Dr Richard Leonard SJ, devoted to film and broadcasting. 

Public advocacy remains a difficult issue for the Australian Bishops and there has been criticism of their effectiveness in proclaiming a clear message on many issues. One perspective on the political influence of the Catholic Church was provided by Jim Wallace, its convenor, in an article in the main Melbourne daily broadsheet, The Age: [42]. 

The political influence of the Catholic Church seemed to have waned on all but ‘life’ issues, and the increasing liberalisation of parts of the Anglican and Uniting churches rendered them unwilling to oppose legislation that angered many in the pews. However, all this changed at this election. The evangelical side of the church saw the mantle had fallen to them and picked it up. 

A factor is the rising influence of the evangelical churches. An independent advocacy group, the Australian Christian Lobby, has been formed and is largely funded by the evangelical and Pentecostal churches. Whatever the long-term impact of evangelical churches on Australian politics, it is the view of some, at least, that, for now, they have filled an advocacy gap perceived as not being filled by other churches.  

It is evident that there will be a divergence of opinion among Catholics on many issues. This is also sometimes true among bishops. However, a public consensus among bishops on key issues, in a spirit of cooperation and collegiality, can be crucial to achieving the public policy objectives of the Church.

There are two types of public policy issues for the Church: those which impact directly upon the Church’s pastoral objectives and those in which the Church has an interest. Funding for Catholic Schools, or Privacy Law impacting on hospital chaplaincy, or exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation, are examples of the first. Same sex marriage, or destructive embryo experimentation are examples of the second. 

There are opportunities for the Episcopal Conference to be a forum for co-ordinated discussion on contentious issues and to avoid the public disagreement that prompted Cardinal Wuerl’s article referred to previously.

The resolution of the tension between local diocesan autonomy and a centralised co-ordinated perspective is within the power of the bishops to achieve. They simply need to reach agreement. The institutionalisation of the episcopate is not a fundamental matter of faith and bishops are free to re-structure how they operate so that the Episcopal ministry is more authentically aligned to the essential nature of the apostolic college.

Dr. Lennan presents the theological proposition in these terms:[43]

We might argue that both the evidence of Scripture and the Church’s consistent practice mean that the episcopacy must be regarded as a constitutive element of the Church. What this does not mean however, is that all aspects of the episcopal ministry, such as the manner of appointment of bishops, their titles, or the relationship between bishops and other members of the Church can claim the status of ius divinum, particularly if they have become inappropriate in the contemporary context. Any reluctance to accept challenges to the panoply of the Church’s institutional life, must itself be challenged by the reminder, that because the church will never exhaust God’s self-revelation in Christ, faithfulness to the Gospel presumes not only the willingness to hold firm to what is essential but also the willingness to free ourselves from those attitudes and practices which the community no longer recognise as vehicles of the spirit. 

Cardinal Wuerl sets the scene for his approach to how the practical issue might be resolved by referring to the practical application of the foundational principles:[44]

An examination of the exercise within the episcopal conference of the affectus collegialis, or collegial spirit, may demonstrate how the bishops of a region may pastorally assist the faithful of their territory who are affected by a particular issue that by necessity requires a pastoral response due to its nature.

The conciliar document Christus Dominus asserts the establishment of Episcopal Conferences as a fruitful result of the cooperation of bishops of a given territory who share “insights of prudence and experience” from which “there will emerge a holy union of energies in the service of the common good of the churches” (Christus Dominus, 37).

He proposes two solutions: [45]

This brings us to a consideration of two possibilities for the conference of bishops in attempting to find a practical pastoral manner to express the collegial spirit that is to be a hallmark of episcopal pastoral ministry. One such approach would be an actual mechanism of the conference to facilitate some consensus and unified pastoral practice. Another approach which would be less formal but perhaps more effective would be the commitment on the part of all the bishops to discuss beforehand, through some conference structure, decisions that will impact all of the bishops and the church as a whole.

While either solution may be appropriate for fundamental policy decisions, such as the position on Holy Communion for dissident politicians, neither is likely to work in practice with respect to media policy.

Managing media responses to major matters of public discussion at a national level is important but difficult. When there are multiple voices acting without co-ordination the message is diluted, personalities are played against each other, and the public is left confused. The fundamental principle of effective public communication, especially for public policy advocacy, is one clear message.

The speedy time frame for media comment requires a permanent structural solution to determine who will speak, when that person will speak and what might be said.

The following is an indicative, not an exhaustive list of possible presenters and the situations in which they might be used to publicly present a Church position:[46] 

1. President of ACBC - for major/national issues (e.g. a Vatican document being released or a formal Conference statement or policy position).

2. Chairman of Bishops Commissions – major issues (e.g. school funding or industrial relations reform, launch of policy document/report).

3. Archbishops – major issues within the States (e.g. State legislation on moral issues) and on national issues in response to the media outlets within their own cities using a template prepared and agreed nationally.

4. Individual Bishops – local issues (e.g. child abuse allegation, or reorganisation of parishes); reinforcing national policy to their local media; explanation of matters of faith. They provide the “local angle” that give some newsworthiness to a more general issue.

5. Expert Bishops – on issues requiring detailed knowledge/expertise (e.g. welfare policy, bioethics, indigenous issues, education funding).

6. Generic Bishops – bishops with particular skills in media, or a relationship with media (e.g. following up on a Vatican document or general Church teaching on issues).

7. Specialised Episcopal Conference Staff – senior staff with a particular and defined competence (e.g. National Director of Caritas on an overseas development funding issue, or the CEO of Catholic Social Services Australia on charity law reform). 

8. Lay expert – expert to handle particular issues within area of expertise or responsibility (e.g. chairman or executive officer of National Catholic Education Commission, Catholic Social Services Australia, Australian Catholic Council for Employment Relations, Catholic Health Australia, Catholic Social Justice Council, Catholic Earthcare Australia, Caritas Australia). There may be times when this is done for the purpose of enhancing the individual’s profile to promote private access to decision makers. 

9. ACBC Secretariat – releasing prepared statement endorsed by the President or a Commission Chairman. ACBC staff also have a role in researching and privately advocating issues, in conjunction with, and where possible to reinforce, public statements or more overt activity by others.

10. Local Diocesan Spokesperson (clerical or lay) – as appropriate for local issues and again to reinforce locally the position of a national spokesperson.

It is not the role of Episcopal Conference staff to substitute for the bishops, either as policy makers or spokespersons. When the Conference President, an individual bishop, or lay expert is delegated by the Episcopal Conference to present a public message this must be crafted to make it clear that this is a Church message and not the private view of the individual.

Episcopal solidarity is critical to an effective media strategy. In practice this means that the designated spokespersons on the various issues are known in advance, and in a spirit of collegiality the policy position is agreed, and their judgment as to what to say, when and how to say it, is respected.

Their effectiveness is significantly undermined if the media source multiple voices and rendered ineffective if there is public contradiction. Diocesan staff and agencies should be kept informed by their bishop of any national strategy and refer requests for comment to the nominated spokesperson. The Conference Communications Officer can be a source of information as to the strategy being adopted and act in a co-ordinating role. Co-ordination rather than control has to be the focus of any national communications office.

In the modern media world, a comment “within one’s own diocese” cannot be confined to that territory. Comments on one’s diocesan newspaper can often be a good source for the national press, especially if they are “controversial.” It would be contrary to the spirit of collegiality for an individual bishop, whose views are not generally accepted by his brother bishops, to justify his own statement by purporting to confine it to his own diocese. 

The disparate nature of the media, the need for a local angle, and lack of discipline within the Church itself, inevitably means that any attempt at centralised control is inadvisable and unworkable. It is naive to presume that the President of the Episcopal Conference will be the natural spokesperson for the Church in a particular territory. He may be less well known to the media than other bishops with high public profile. He is elected for a term and may well only develop a good media profile just before his term ends. He may or may not have that “charisma” that media outlets identify as “good talent.”

The resolution of the problem of who speaks requires agreement by the bishops on a protocol which could take the form of identifying categories of spokespeople for particular situations.

The resolution of what is said requires agreement on the broad elements of the policy position. It is this exercise that is most properly within the competence of the Episcopal Conference. It can provide the necessary research and material for the bishops to thoroughly discuss an issue in order to resolve differences and determine a public position. It will be an exercise of the affectus collegialis, for an individual bishop to accept that others propose a different view to his own and to remain silent on that issue in the public forum for the good of the whole Church. Where it is clear that there is no general consensus, this may well indicate that this is a matter where the entire episcopate remains silent and acknowledges that on this particular matter there is no “Catholic” position.

By way of conclusion the Episcopal Conference is less a player in its own right in the media marketplace than the facilitator of research and information gathering to properly equip those who the bishops of a territory give the task of being the public face of the Church.

[1] http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

[2] Apostolicam Actuositatem n 1.

[3] 2. cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Nature of the Church, nos. 33 ff.: A.A.S. 57 (1965) pp. 39 ff.; cf; also Constitution on the Liturgy, nos. 26-40; A.A.S. 56 (1964) pp. 107- 111; cf. Decree on Instruments of Social Communication: A.A.S. 56 (1964) pp. 145-158; cf. Decree on Ecumenism: A.A.S. 57 (1965) pp. 90-107; cf. Decree on Pastoral Duties of Bishops, nos. 16, 17, 18; cf. Declaration on Christian Education, nos. 3, 5, 7; cf. Decree on Missionary Activity of Church, nos. 15, 21, 41; cf. Decree on Priestly Life and Ministry, no. 9.

[4] Inter Mirifica 13.

[5] Athanasius Life of St Antony n 93 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2811.htm

[6] Richard Lennan, Risking the Church, the Challenges of Catholic Faith, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004 p 133. Cf also Richard Lennan, “Challenging and Challenged: The Church as Institution”, Australasian Catholic Record, Vol LXX issue 4, October 1993, p 434.

[7] Brian Lucas, “Mission and Identity of Faith-Based Organization – The Role of Bishops”, Australasian Catholic Record, Volume 84 No 1 January 2007 p 45

[8] Canon 216
Since they share the Church's mission, all Christ's faithful have the right to promote and support apostolic action, by their own initiative, undertaken according to their state and condition. No initiative, however, can lay claim to the title 'catholic' without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.

[9] Canon. 312

§1 The authority which is competent to establish public asso­ciations is:

1° the Holy See, for universal and international associations;

2° the Episcopal Conference in its own territory, for national asso­ciations which by their very establishment are intended for work throughout the whole nation;

3° the diocesan Bishop, each in his own territory, but not the diocesan Administrator, for diocesan associations, with the exception, however, of associations the right to whose establish­ment is reserved to others by apostolic privilege.

§2 The written consent of the diocesan Bishop is required for the valid establishment of an association or branch of an association in the diocese, even though it is done in virtue of an apostolic privilege. Permission, however, which is given by the diocesan Bishop for the foundation of a house of a religious institute, is valid also for the establishment in the same house, or in a church attached to it, of an association which is proper to that institute.

[10] Archbishop Michael Miller, “Catholic Universities and Their Catholic Identity” Origins, Vol 35 no 27, 15 December 2005 p 451 at 454.

[11] Can. 803

§1 A catholic school is understood to be one which is under the control of the competent ecclesiastical authority or of a public eccle­siastical juridical person, or one which in a written document is acknowl­edged as catholic by the ecclesiastical authority.

§ Formation and education in a catholic school must be based on the principles of catholic doctrine, and the teachers must be outstanding in true doctrine and uprightness of life.

§3 No school, even if it is in fact Catholic, may bear the title ‘catholic’ except by the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.

Canon 804

§1 The formation and education in the catholic religion pro­vided in any school, and through various means of social communication, is subject to the authority of the Church. It is for the Episcopal Conference to issue general norms concerning this field of activity and for the dioce­san Bishop to regulate and watch over it.

§2 The local Ordinary is to be careful that those who are appointed as teachers of religion in schools, even non-catholic ones, are outstanding in true doctrine, in the witness of their Christian life, and in their teaching ability.

[12] Cf Canon 806.

[13] Francis, Schüssler Fiorenza, “The Church’s Religious Identity and its Social and Political Mission”, Theological Studies, Vol 43 No 2, June 1982 p197.

[14] http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/docs/documents/hf_jp-ii_doc_30111998_bolla-jubilee_en.html

[15] Pope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis 13 “Out of regard for Christ and in view of the mystery that constitutes the Church's own life, the Church cannot remain insensible to whatever serves man's true welfare, any more than she can remain indifferent to what threatens it. In various passages in its documents the Second Vatican Council has expressed the Church's fundamental solicitude that life in "the world should conform more to man's surpassing dignity" in all its aspects, so as to make that life "ever more human". http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis_en.html

[16] Deus Caritas Est n 32.

[17] Pope John Paul II, Address to the New York Province of the USA Bishops, ad limina visit, Friday, October 8, 2004: L’Osservatore Romano (English edition), October 13, 2004 p 3, Origins, Vol 24 no 19, October 21 2004 p 304 at 305.
“The structures and procedures of a Conference should never become unduly rigid; instead, through constant reassessment and reappraisal, they should be adapted to suit the changing needs of the bishops. In order for a Conference to fulfil its proper function, care should be taken to ensure that the offices or commissions within a Conference strive to be of help to the bishops and not to substitute for them, and even less to create an intermediate structure between the Apostolic See and individual bishops.”

[18] Congregation for Bishops Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops (Apostolorum Successores), (Libreria Editrice Vaticana 2004). no.58 p 68.

[19] Coriden J, Green T, Heintschel D, The Code of Canon Law – A Text and Commentary. Paulist Press, New York, 1985, p 555.

[20] ibid, p 579.

[21] ibid, p 584.

[22] ACBC Archives Minutes Meeting Bishops Committee for Media, Kensington 28 April 1995.

[23] Bishop Donald Wuerl, “Individual Bishops’ Decisions and Ecclesial Communion”, Origins Volume: 35 Issue 13, September 8, 2005 p 213 at p 214.

[24] Cf Francis P Carroll, The Development of Episcopal Conferences, Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor in Canon law, Pont. Universitas Urbaniana de Propaganda Fide, Sydney 1965, pp 6 -28; NCCCL p 588f. Cf also Canon Law Society of America, New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, John P Beal, James A Coriden, Thomas J. Green, (eds), Paulist Press, New Jersey, 2000 p 588f.

[25] 22. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace, and also the councils assembled together, in which more profound issues were settled in common, the opinion of the many having been prudently considered, both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character.

[26] 6. As legitimate successors of the Apostles and members of the episcopal college, bishops should realize that they are bound together and should manifest a concern for all the churches. For by divine institution and the rule of the apostolic office each one together with all the other bishops is responsible for the Church.

[27] Angel Anton, SJ, “The theological ‘status‘ of Episcopal Conferences”, The Jurist 48 (1988) 185-186 published also in The Nature and Future of Episcopal Conferences,, Hervé Legrand, Julio Manzanares and Antonio García y García eds, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, 1988, cf also Episcopal Conferences, Historical Canonical and Theological Studies, Thomas J. Reese SJ ed, Georgetown University press, Washington, 1989.

[28] Pope John Paul II Apostolic Letter issued “Motu Proprio” Apostolos Suos On The Theological and Juridical Nature Of Episcopal Conferences 21 May 1998 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_22071998_apostolos-suos_en.html

[29] 8. Objectives of the Episcopal Conference. The role of the Episcopal Conference has grown in importance in recent years. In manifold and fruitful ways, the Conference contributes to the realization and development of the spirit of collegiality (affectus collegialis) among members of the same Episcopate. Through the Conference, the Bishops fulfil certain pastoral functions jointly for the faithful of their territory. Such action corresponds to the need, particularly evident today, for Bishops to provide for the common good of particular Churches through an agreed and well-coordinated policy.

[30] 56 If recourse to the principle of communion is to be made correctly and effectively, certain points of reference must always be kept in mind. Account will first have to be made of the fact that within his particular Church the Diocesan Bishop possesses all ordinary, proper and immediate power needed for carrying out his pastoral ministry. He therefore has a proper sphere for the independent exercise of this authority, a sphere recognized and protected by universal law. On the other hand, the Bishop's power coexists with the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff, which is itself episcopal, ordinary and immediate over all the individual Churches and their groupings, and over all the pastors and faithful.

[31] Congregation for The Doctrine Of The Faith Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church on Some Aspects Of The Church Understood As Communion 28 May 1992 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html

[32] Walter Kaspar, “On the Church” America April 23-30, 2001, pp 8-14.

[33] Cardinal Edward Cassidy, “Local Churches and the Universal Church in the Church Evangelising Mission”, Australasian Catholic Record Vol 79 Issue 4, October 2002, p 421 at p 422.

[34] Apostolos Suos n. 23

[35] Dulles, Avery SJ, “What is the Role of a Bishops Conference”, Origins, Volume: 17 Issue 46, April 28, 1988, p 789 at p 793.

[36] Vigilanti Cura http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061936_vigilanti-cura_en.html 29 June 1936.

[37] Inter Mirifica 21.

[38] ACBC Archives Minutes Meetings of Hierarchy 1953 item 15.

[39] ACBC Archives Minutes AEC 1965 item 27.

[40] ACBC Archives Minutes AEC August 1971 items 54 & 56.

[41] Fr Paul Duffy S.J. To Bring the Good News – Evangelisation and Communications, Recommendation 2

[42] “Christianity is the political force”, The Age, 13 Oct 2004, p15

[43] Richard Lennan, “Challenging and Challenged: The Church as Institution”, Australasian Catholic Record Vol LXX issue 4, October 1993, p 442

[44] Wuerl op cit p 214.

[45] Wuerl op cit p 216

[46] This model takes for its context the experience and situation of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (ACBC).