Amen!  Great post.

I think it cuts both ways however.  Because we have a widespread access to information now, we can more easily look up information from the Church and people have less excuse to claim invincible ignorance.

I’m not saying the Church is doing everything perfectly of course.  The Church should of course make access to that information easier and make sure it is understandable to the person who does not understand the terms Catholics of a few generations would understand. 

But then again, the Church has been calling for the faithful who are knowledgeable in these new forms of communication to assist in spreading the good news for quite some time now.

Keep the good word. Pray and Act

Arnobius, I love your comment about less excuse to claim invincible ignorance.  You are so right, it is easier to get information from the source… the Church, now that we have the internet and because the Church is embracing the technology more and more.  IT really took some presuading for me to get the Rector of Our Cathedral Parish to allow me to start a Facebook page.  NOT because he didn’t LIKE the idea, I think because he is not really up to date on Technology and the Internet, he was quite hesitant.  Matt hits the nail right on the head with this article.  I hope people with share it with their pastors and get them to jump on the ‘bandwagon’.... KEEP trying and be respectful in your attempts.  Honey goes down a lot easier than vinegar.

I guess if everyone had the correct information we would all be saints! But the truth is not distinguished by being merely differentiated from error but primarily in its level of profundity. Several people can say different and even seemingly contradictory things on one subject and all be right, but it is the higher level of truthful sublimity that elevates one closer to God. The Church’s grandeur comes from this sublimity and not from its media exposure, nor its “shall nots” but from its positive example, even when correcting itself. The Church’s Facebook page and the Pope’s tweets are far from this grandeur owing to the secular nature of the medium used, which is fine for the laity or secular religious. This is lost on us mostly because of a worldly, secular attitude in the Church and a loss of the sense of the sacred.

A good friend send me this link. It had occurred to me that there was evidently no media strategy for the Church, in England anyway. I began to look for evidence of it elsewhere.

While there is plenty of Catholic chatter, news stories, academic writing, and access to the writings from the Vatican, it is still clear there is no media strategy. Joining in, is not a strategy.

Personal vanities, minor political squabbles and hobby horses dominate the electronically available agenda. There are notable outposts which would be called virtuous (I don’t mean ridiculously pious, I mean virtuous). There are soul-searchings amongst the foot-stampings.

Media is not just electronic, of course.

It would be entirely possible for the Church to get a grip on all this in a way which reflects and communicates the genius of the Catholic Faith.

The Catholic church can no longer control the dissemination of truth, and since they didn’t tell the truth before, and people realize that now, the Catholic church can’t be trusted in the future, and that will be the prevalent message.

Teenagers will turn from the church by the time they leave their parents house.  As teenagers, they will be tempted by friends who wanted them to drink, or take drugs, or have sex, or have an abortion, or skip school, skip church, steal, lie, or commit a crime.

Your kid will say he’s a Catholic.

Their friends will talk about the Catholic church in Philadelphia, where Father Cudemo raped 12 year old Ruth, then took her for an abortion.  They will show how the church knew about him, hid the truth, lied to parishioners.  Kids will have proof online, in their Iphones, at their fingertips, in the Philadelphia Grand Jury report at http://www.philadelphiadistrictattorney.com/images/Grand_Jury_Report.pdf

Father Cudemo went on to rape 17 children, and there are thousands of similar stories in the United States alone, many online.

No one would have an intelligent response, least of all a teenager under pressure.  Kids will sympathize with the kids that were raped, not with their angry, preachy parents and priests. 

Had the church been respectable, told the truth, and helped the victims, your child would have a case.  All the church had to do was to follow the 10 commandments and “What Would Jesus Do”. 

Catholics left their children with no defense, and they will give in to temptation, and get out of the Catholic church as soon as they can.

The only way to fix it is to get rid of every bishop and priest on the planet and start over.  Take care of the victims, and apologize profusely.  Start a new Catholic church, where a priest NEVER rapes a child.  If you think that’s not possible, look at the policies of Disney or Chucky Cheese. 

If you do all that, your children might respect your religion.  Otherwise they’ll respect their friends.  If you’re a parent, don’t worry about having that conversation with your teenager.  They won’t ask.

The response from Patrick (immediately above this note) is an attempt at devising a media strategy, including within its scopethe message sent by behaviour.

The strategy seems to be to start all over again. Evidence in favour of this approach and reasons for doing it are presented.

While the content and reasons may be individual views, the key point is that Patrick is suggesting a method.

Devising a method for strategy formation is the first step. The method will determine the outcome.

The Catholic Church is out of control because the authority of the institutionl church has lied since day one.  They have no credibility with me and from what I read, hear and see, are losing credibility all over the world on an hourly basis.  Patrick O’Malley is right.  If we starteed here in the US with our civil courts perhaps we could forge some understanding of the damage that is being done to the children and grandchildren who are our future.

Good food for thought here. And I like the previous comment about how people should do their own research and finding facts rather than hastily displaying ignorance by making ignorant remarks. We do have ready access to so much of the Church’s teachings, documents and proclamations. If we are willing to put our two cents in in cyberspace we should be willing to partake of the treasure in it as well.

I hear of a great wave of people, actually, whose journey toward and into the Catholic Church is now warranting mention in certain textbooks.  Hmmmm.  According to some of you, they must have been hiding in caves, being fed only what the Church would feed them.  In reality, they are very knowledgeable, many pastors and professors in the Protestant world.  This fact contradicts your accusation concerning the Church’s veracity for which you offer no proof.

How absolutely right your are!

I say yes, enthusiastically! Thank you!

This reminds me of the days I worked as an asst city manager and I pushed so hard for the City to develop a social media strategy. I faced much resistance from the elected officials as they were afraid that the ‘message’ would no longer be controlled from the inside but the citizens would be pushing the agenda (gasp!). It backfired. Citizens find ways to push their messages. Why not be a participant in the conversation?

I see some similarities here…

Not even the captain or the wheelman of the Titanic could change the direction of that huge ship in time to avoid the iceberg.  When Pope John Paul the FIRST tried to take control of the R.C. church and to try to move it in THE RIGHT DIRECTION for a change, he was found dead in his bed 33 days later “of natural causes”. (LOL)  See how and why he and MANY OTHER high ranking liberal Catholic clergy were eliminated so that the papal electors of 1987 could produce the desired outcome, i.e. the very CONSERVATIVE JohnPaul II instead of the very LIBERAL reformer, John Paul the First : http://JesusWouldBeFurious.Org/murderedpope.html .

The “message” isn’t spoken as part of our 10 minute exposure to the truth on Sundays.  Before we hope to speak truthfully to the culture, we must begin in our churches.  Pastors need to stand up, be courageous, speak the truth with charity.

A thoughtful article, Matt.  I think you are correct in saying that many Catholics do not have a clear understanding of all that is Catholic.  To be alive our spiritual journey must be one of growth.  While it is ultimately our personal responsibility to seek knowledge and become informed about the tenets that guide our spiritual lives, it is also the Church’s responsibility to promote its message and tenets in a current, relevant dialogue that is easily obtained, understood, and participated in. This speaks directly to the on-line venue, as the busy, tech-savvy filled lives of the average person seem to demand smaller snippets of time and faster paced knowledge-gaining experiences. Therefore, while still very valuable, large blocks of time to be spent outside the home at Bible studies, etc., may not be as popular a route for providing the Church’s message to its own.  Audio on the go, and blogging forums, along with meditational and informative websites are where today’s hungry are fed with quick snippets of information and/or inspiration.
    I believe many Catholics and other Christians are hungry for these ways to grow in their faith, and yet, are timid about participating in them for fear of saying the wrong thing and/or not feeling as educated or well versed as other participants.  They lack confidence in their skills to communicate their beliefs, and they are fearful of being attacked, as many of the forums are more argumentative than informative.  There are also those, who because of a lack of good foundation knowledge in their Catholicism or other Christian faith, are not sure who to believe, who has authority, or who speaks the truth.  They are fearful of believing the wrong things, and the on-line communities are filled with those who speak with authority, yet no authenticity.  I feel it is the Church’s responsibilities to provide that authenticity in the on-line community in a non-threatening, welcoming, informative and educational way through back and forth dialogue with all comers.  The Church needs to provide on-line representatives for answering all questions, or inserting authentic tenets into the ongoing dialogue, in a non-judgmental way, so all faiths might participate and thereby better understand the Church’s tenets.
    I have seen the Pope’s call to all to provide this type authentic dialogue using the on-line community and believe progress is being made.  His call to action shows an understanding that the Church must be a participant. Nay, more than that, the Church must lead the way, or the message will be truly lost in the mayhem.
    As lay people of the Catholic faith, we are all called to where our faith on our sleeve, and to live in authenticity from our heart.  We will make mistakes for we are not perfect.  It is in our imperfection that we will find the means to grow ever closer to our God, and to our Church. It is in sharing our imperfections openly that we endear ourselves to our fellow Christians and make them want to know more about us and our faith journey.

    God bless you, Matt, for sharing yourself and your beliefs in a welcoming, authentic witness.

You hit the nail on the head, Mr. Warner.

This is interesting, though a bit of a sweeping generalization. And it seems not to acknowledge the fact that the USCCB is on Facebook, and allows pretty free-wheeling commenting on there. Also, minor point, it’s “legal counsel” not “council.”

Very well expressed Matt. We laity must take the lead in pursuing the New Evangelization. Social media is one way to engage the “world”.

The Catholic church needs strong leaders, our Bishops need a stronger voice to rally the people so they can rally the priests, it time to make a decision either you are with the catholic church or you are against it. When something like same sex marriage is in the cross hairs, the bishops and the priests need to condem any catholic politician who would think about voting for it, the Pope has said that these people need to be told they cannot practice their religion and believe in S/S marriage, abortion and all subjects that leed to the culture of death. In New York the catholic Bishops are dancing around playing a fiddle while the fire is beginning to burn.

From one Catholic new media geek to another: You dictated the words echoing in my heart, Matt. Let’s keep working and praying…and most importantly, challenging ourselves daily to live our faith.

One question for the church to answers, If god is great and good, How come in making the planet he put flaws in it that has and is killing people

Funny thing for you to say in a Catholic blog, one of maybe hundreds of Catholic blogs, not to mention Face Book accounts which are daily discussing every breath of the Catholic world, and in the same month the Pope twittered for the first time.

Dear Mr. O’malley,

I am sorry for your sense of hopelessness.  It is a tragedy when one reaches a point where one cannot forgive.  Staying in that place is tortuous.  I have no advice for how escape the Minataur’s maze.  I’ll say a prayer.

You are in error though in your assumption that what you feel and think is universal or even common.

We lose our children to secularism because we allow a decadent, lost and relativist age to shape them, not because of a rationalistic response to their “parent’s faith”.  I am, therefore, hopeful that the generations that come can benefit from intentional parenting: controlling the media that they consume as much as we can, listening to them as they tell us about the media they interact with that we cannot control, challenging relativism and hedonism where it raises it’s head in our homes and families, and praying… More than any other thing, praying.

Christ promised that He would never leave is and that He’ll would not prevail.  The end cannot be as you state.  You seem to be articulating your own anguish, not that of the Church.  The Truth is simply stronger than that.

Spot on article. Even on this website, the hierarchy doesn’t participate in discussions on doctrine, so we have contradictory “doctrinal opinions” with each side accusing the other of not being in accord with the faith. The laity, for example, is instructed to refrain from publicly opining on doctrine in canon 227, but that doesn’t seem to stop bloggers from doing so, regardless of qualification, or lack thereof.

It’s time the hierarchy started participation in this. The web has let the genie out of the bottle, but not everyone should be granted a doctrinal wish, much less three.

I think that is basically right Tom.

There are, however, a number of excellent clergy blogs like Father Z: What does the prayer really say?

There is a special challenge for the clergy though in that their writing often sounds like it is at odds with the US bishops because it is they who are silent in controversy.  What I mean is that there is a lot written by qualified commentators - both religious and laity - on controversial subjects that our bishops seem silent on.

I suspect that there is a large body of nuanced writing by bishops that never reaches the public, but that is precisely the point.  In an effort to handle things diplomatically, like the excommunication of politicians who advocate for abortion like Sen. Kennedy, our bishops Sondheim wushu-washy or uncertain as to what the faith answer to controversy is.  The qualified bloggers then, by default, end up being the voice of the Church for the hundreds of thousands who will never pick up an encyclical.

If anyone know how to turn off the I-pad’s auto correct, I’d be much obliged.

By “Sondeim wushu-washy” I meant “sound wishy-washy”.  Sheesh.

I think of Cardinal Newman’s insight in The Idea of a University:

“If then a University is a direct preparation for this world, let it be what it professes.  It is not a Convent, it is not a Seminary; it is a place to fit men of the world for the world.  We cannot possibly keep them from plunging into the world, with all its ways and principles and maxims, when their time comes; but we can prepare them against what is inevitable; and it is not the way to learn to swim in troubled waters, never to have gone into them.”

For the layperson, the person ‘of the world for the world’, the digital continent does in fact represent a new mission field. I think it would be a form of clericalism to suggest that what we really need are the Church’s official teachers engaging in the social media. I welcome their participation, but for most, the demands of their ministry—and the demands of their particular path to holiness—probably precludes extensive involvement in the worlds of Twitter, Facebook, and blogging.

It’s clear that the Church is encouraging engagement in the new media, but I think there’s a healthy concern on the Church’s part about the perils as well as the opportunities. Consider this passage from Pope Benedict’s message for World Communications Day this year: “In the digital age too, everyone is confronted by the need for authenticity and reflection. Besides, the dynamic inherent in the social networks demonstrates that a person is always involved in what he or she communicates. When people exchange information, they are already sharing themselves, their view of the world, their hopes, their ideals. It follows that there exists a Christian way of being present in the digital world: this takes the form of a communication which is honest and open, responsible and respectful of others. To proclaim the Gospel through the new media means not only to insert expressly religious content into different media platforms, but also to witness consistently, in one’s own digital profile and in the way one communicates choices, preferences and judgements that are fully consistent with the Gospel, even when it is not spoken of specifically.”

Indeed, there is a great need for authenticity… of authentic witness. The path of authenticity is the same as it has ever been: responding to the universal call to holiness… prayer, self-denial, conversion, discernment, generosity with God and neighbor. All of this will be necessary if we want to be more than another clashing cymbal in the cyber-cacophany that is present on the web. If we are not deepening in our own spiritual lives, stepping back from time to time from the pseudo-urgency of the frenetic cycle of news and opinion, taking a breather from expressing our own views to beg a bit of God’s wisdom, resisting the temptation to cyber-celebrity and egocentrism, steering clear of the mentality of the cybervigilante who does not hesitate to pull up both weeds and wheat in pursuit of a purer Church… then we run the serious risk of becoming counter-witnesses of the Gospel we wish to serve.

During the Jubilee Year 2000, Barbara Nicolosi wrote an article called “Christians and Media: A Prayer for Forgiveness.” It seems as appropriate today as it did eleven years ago…

http://www.doxaweb.com/assets/media_prayer.pdf

There’s a question from the days of Vatican II:  Who is the church and whose church is it?

This church is as much mine as anyone else’s and it’s time that we the laity made ourselves felt in significant ways.  First step is to insist that we be rid of the hierarchs who have ignored and exacerbated the abuse issues.  Let them know that they are persona non grata in their positions of trust that they have violated and brought shame upon.

Look at what Rupert Murdoch is doing right now.  He’s cleaning house.  We should insist on no less in those dark corners of the church from parish rectories to diocesan sees to curial discastories.  Enough!

Dear Mr. O’Leary,

I appreciate the spirit that your comment brings to the discussion and I hope that you agree that there must be limits to the democratization of the Church.

The laity have “made ourselves felt in significant ways” for fourty years and I don’t think it has always worked to our favor.  Dissent on administrative matters is one thing… how much money to spend on buildings, how much tuition for our schools should be, etc., but on matters spiritual, that road leads to schism and heresy. 

As for holding the hierarchy accountable for the handling of the sex abuse scandel, I am also with you… to a point.  There is a well-intentioned push these days to refuse service and support to the Church in an effort to punish Her for the abuse.  This is, to my mind, terribly misguided.  You have not said what form of protest you believe appropriate for the laity to employ so I will not presume that you embrace this idea.  I suggest though that the Church is much more than Her mistakes and those of Her hierarchy who fall from the path of righteousness.  Therefore, it is a mistake to think that wresting temporal authority from the hierarchy will lead to good things.  It is just as likely to lead to chaos and misery.

TomR: “The laity, for example, is instructed to refrain from publicly opining on doctrine in canon 227” - no, that’s not actually what Canon 227 says; there’s nothing to stop any member of the laity giving an opinion on doctrine.  What 227 says is that the laity must avoid “avoid setting forth their own opinion as the doctrine of the Church”, which is a very different matter.

The wider problem here, though, is that it’s very difficult to have a media strategy which works in any organisation which is highly diverse and decentralised.  I work in a University with some 6,000 staff and 40,000 students; arranging for two different faculties to sound as though they are on the same planet let alone part of the same organisation is far from easy, and ‘academic freedom’ gets hurled around as soon as anyone tries. 

The Church is even more diverse, and far more widespread; and her Bishops are not only invested with a large amount of individual responsibility and authority but also tend to be some way behind the technogical curve.  The Pope may have an iPad, but that doesn’t mean that majority of Bishops can handle either the technological means to run a modern media strategy.

Take ten minutes looking at a random selection of Diocesan websites, and consider what that says about the situation.  If we can’t even have usable and accessible websites in most Diocese, what’s the chance of effective social engagement?

Unless, of course, the Church really takes it seriously, and mandates every Conference of Bishops to appoint a capable and experiences social media manager, with the funding available to make it happen -and perhaps to drag the rest of the Church’s electronic presence into the 21st century too.  But is that either ecclesially or financially feasible?

@David.

Your reading of canon 227 is correct. My apologies for the mis-characterization. However, my comment still stands. There have been several posts on this and other Catholic forums, most notably on the lying controversy, wherein laity have interpreted a single statement from the catechism, then proceeded to define what that statement means, and tell others that if they don’t accept their definition, they do not fall within the teacching of the Church. That is not proper, because that is expressing an opinion as doctrine.

I receive several TWEETS from the Vatican every day.  Sign up, it’s very interesting! #news_va_en

Catholics are in exile. We have returned to the authentic Church. The authentic church does not have to “modernize”. SSPX calls on authentic catholics. You will not find truth in mean spirited blogs. Only in our chapels. JMJ

@Patrick O’Malley:

“The only way to fix it is to get rid of every bishop and priest on the planet and start over.  Take care of the victims, and apologize profusely.  Start a new Catholic church, where a priest NEVER rapes a child.  If you think that’s not possible, look at the policies of Disney or Chucky Cheese.”

## Leaving the CC won’t end evils in the Church - it will merely mean that any new body formed by leavers will also have problems, because the only Churches without problems are Churches without sinners: and they are found only in Heaven, Paradise, or where no Churches exist. There will be problems for as long as human nature is liable to sin and error, to the end of time.

This is what atheists too overlook: they seem to think they can escape evil if they avoid the Churches or the Bible - they don’t seem to realise that evil is present in Churches or religions, not because Churches or religions are evil, but because human nature is evil and needs conversion. 

“[G]et[ting] rid of every bishop and priest on the planet and start[ing] over” is too superficial. It’s another version of the question “Why don’t the liberals/conservatives leave the Church ?” The evil is in the human heart, not in the behaviours that earn the labels; it makes an unreal and superficial distinction between “them” & “us” - as though “we” & “they” were not the same people with the same nature. it is not yet time for the sheep and the goats - even if it were, that division is for Christ to make, & not for any man.

The solution is conversion of heart to the One for Whom alone they are made - *then* we will have holy priests, and holy bishops, and a holy People of God. And a Church that is not impoverished by losing Christ’s members. There is no reason why this cannot happen, because no troubles in the Church can ever be beyond the power of Christ to turn into means of grace. With faith, and hope, and love, there is no reason why this should not happen, & every reason why it should. (How much division is there in a Church united by love, and how much discouragement in a Church transformed by faith & hope ?) The Church is not out of control - that’s the last thing it is: it can never be outside the control of Christ; least of all when He seems to be absent from it.

“And we have more and more Catholics—both leadership and laity—coming forth to be a part of that influence.”
LEADERSHIP AND LAITY. Cannot the laity be a part of the leadership of the Church?  Are the clergy the only ones who can lead?  Have they?
Broaden your distinctions, please.  Thank God that Christ ultimately leads His Church.  Without Christ, if the laity does not lead in these perilous times, or at least add its genius to the ‘leadership’ of the Church so narrowly defined, we’re doomed.

Matt, As with your youtube video that I asked you if I could feature on a facebook page, you absolutely hit the nail on the head in this post which clearly has been quite a conversation starter in and of itself.

The point I’d like to make is my view that *this* conversation, ie, the conversation regarding losing control of the message that you’ve addressed in this post and that others have commented on below, needs to continue in earnest and it needs to include as many people in our Church as possible… young and old alike.

It’s great to see people like yourself taking this conversation seriously. My hope is that we see more such discussions offline (such as the Catholic New Media Conference where you will be speaking) and online (such as here and in emerging forums such as the recently begun twitter chat (#chsocm) started by Meredith Gould as well.

It’s no wonder all of these discussions have begun: This is perhaps the most important of all the conversations if we are to be effective as a Church in all of the other “conversations” occurring across the web.

Let’s continue the dialogue, let’s think of creative ways of using the social web to foster that dialogue, let’s continue to make an effort to keep it civil and charitable and let’s move forward together under the guidance of our Church leaders.

God bless everyone reading this. I feel so blessed to be Catholic. Such an imperfect family so in need of God’s grace and healing. And such a perfect God whose grace really is leading all of us home.

- Hugh Macken

You raise very valid and important points about the role social media could play in today’s Church. My concern is that you seem to want the Church to use social media not for actual conversation and listening to the faithful, but simply as a modern method to present and/or clarify Church teaching. This seems so unfortunate, and would become yet another way that institutional leadership would turn its deaf ear to the people of God. Using social media could open up wonderful dialogue and evangelization if the communication and formation flows in both directions—and would leave room for God’s grace to do wonders.

What is the message?  That is the first question.  Is it the gospel or is it that we are a fine organization that has had a few issues lately but we’re clearing that up?
I became Catholic in 2003 despite the scandals, despite the real problems in the Church because it was the Church of Jesus Christ, the real deal, the authentic Church for anyone who wants to follow Christ.
I didn’t join an organization, a corporate structure, a democratic commonwealth.  So is this message that we want to put out simply PR?  We have modernized (whatever that means) and now we are “down with the people.”  Oops, sorry, that expression went out in the seventies.  Tell you what, fill in your own expression, from whatever era.  It’s all the same.
Listen, a Church that has lasted 2000 years has, first of all, a pretty good message to begin with and if for some reason we think we need to modify it, we’re already off track.  Secondly, a Church that has been around for 2000 years has more going for it than a great organizational structure, although the one it has was instituted by Christ himself.  No other organization has lasted that long precisely because this is not an organization per se.  It is the Church, the body of Christ.  It is the Kingdom of Christ here on earth and as Jesus himself said, at any given time there are wheat and tares in the Kingdom.  Sometimes it seems there are more tares than wheat.
So who cares what Rupert Murdoch or Disney are doing?  It is irrelevant.  Who is in charge of the Church ultimately?  Whose Church is it?  It belongs to Jesus Christ and to the extent, and only to the extent that we are a part of him does it belong to us. 
So who can fix it?  He can.  Perhaps we may not like the way He goes about it, but if we want the Church to be fixed we need to ask him.  Every one of us, every day, and we need to get a massive prayer meeting going in heaven as well, all to the same purpose.  And we have to keep at it until things change.
Meantime, there is no need to modify the message.  We tell what we know to be the truth and do our best to live by it.
The new media is just a tool, or perhaps we might say toolkit, but the message is still the same, and always will be.
The rubber meets the road in the parish doesn’t it?  Well, if Father isn’t preaching the gospel or is watering it down, light a fire under him with prayer and fasting.  Call down the help of heaven and believe me, you won’t have to say a thing.  He will get the message or he will get very uncomfortable.  When the Holy Spirit speaks to his ministers, he can be persuasive.
The same thing for bishops and cardinals.  You want to get rid of them?  Pray them out.  You have no idea how much power you have on your knees.  If the convicting power of heaven descends upon them they will have a change of heart or quit.
We are always told to pray for our priests and bishops.  Nobody ever mentions what that prayer ought to be.  Here’s what to pray.  Pray that the Holy Spirit will light a fire in them, give them strength and courage.  God will do the rest.
And then pray that God will light a fire in you and your fellow Catholics.  Things will change.  Some will just get too uncomfortable and leave, likely making some nasty comments on the way out the door.  Ignore that, and keep praying for them, because that is just a sign that God is speaking to their conscience, the same way that he speaks to yours.

Eileen - I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I’ve written extensively on the Church’s use of social media and one of the primary things I always talk about is the importance of using it to listen to people and have real, two-way relationships. So I’m not sure what you’re basing your opinion on.

LJ - I’ve never once advocated for the Church “changing” her message or her teachings (as you seem to be implying). This post is about gaining control of her message - not changing it.

Magistra - I think it’s quite clear that the phrase “both leadership and laity” is used in this context to include “everyone” - both laity and (ecclesiastical) leadership are coming forth to do their part. Of course the laity are called to be leaders in all kinds of ways within the Church. There’s no question.

And to those who misunderstood - Of course, the Church never “loses” her message, either. She is the bride of Christ. What I mean by how the Church has “lost control of her message” is that the message is not getting out. People are getting the wrong message. Most people don’t really know or understand the message of the Church (the Gospel, the full extent of Catholic teaching). In this sense, they have lost control of the message. The media, secularists, non-catholics and misinformed catholics are controlling the message much more effectively than the Church…meaning it’s skewed, distorted and plain wrong. There has been a breakdown of communication. And the breakdown is not only due to those receiving it. It’s also due to our poor delivery of it and failure to effectively engage people with it. We are not communicating our message as effectively as we could be and failing to do so in some very important ways.

I understood Matt to be calling for more effort along the lines of what John XXIII called for in his address at the opening of the Second Vatican Council:

“This certain and unchanging teaching (i.e., Christian doctrine in its completeness), to which the faithful owe obedience, needs to be more deeply understood and set forth in a way adapted to the needs of our time. Indeed, this deposit of the faith, the truths contained in our time-honored teaching, is one thing; the manner in which these truths are set forth (with their meaning preserved intact) is something else.” (October 12, 1962)

Matt, I appreciate your criticism. This is the first and only article of yours I have read, so my comments are based only on this article. When I read this article, phrases such as “this is war” and “going to battle” did not communicate an attitude of listening and mutual, beneficial relationships. Neither did repeated statements of calling the faithful ignorant of Church teaching. You asked the question, “is it harder to be part of the conversation?” and answered it with the phrases and statements I’ve listed above. As the reader, I just didn’t hear inclusion, listening, relationship. That’s what I was talking about in my original comments.

Eileen - I’m sorry for any misunderstanding. I’m sure I could have done a better job communicating it. But this is a post about messaging - as an organization, as an institution, as Christ’s Church. Public Relations, really. It’s not a post on simply the broader (and certainly important) issue of the Church’s use of social media / evangelization / etc….although they’re all certainly related.

“This is war” is referring to the fact that the Church is under attack. Her message has been hijacked by a misinformed media and an uncatechized pop-culture. Hence, there is a lot of ignorance. That’s not name-calling, it’s a statistical fact. And it’s part of the problem we need to assess and recognize before we can work on the solutions.

All that said, “being a part of the conversation” (which is a central point to this post) implies a healthy does of listening. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a conversation. But you’re right that I could have emphasized that more to make it more clear. Thank you.

Dear Matt,
I certainly agree that the Church is coming from behind in this department.  The problem is we let the message get hijacked decades ago.  Another problem is a very hostile popular media.  Try having a serious discussion on NBC or MSNBC….  Until the people within the popular media are more willing to be objective, we will have, I believe, an impossible job of reaching most people. Then there is the problem that most people posting and blogging are openly hostile and have absolutely no intention of being open-minded let alone having a civil discussion.  I must admit to being extremely discouraged navigating my way around this new media.

Matthew and LAJ,

How pitiful you are that you think the Catholic church is a victim.  They raped tens of thousands of children, they lied about it, and they ignored the victims.  These are crimes against humanity, and crimes against God. 

Now you try to spin it as if the media is necessarily hostile against the largest pedophile protection program in the history of mankind.  Pitiful, and pathetic.

Patrick O’ Malley,

You referred to “the largest pedophile protection program in the history of mankind”. Is it really?

From what I’ve heard, the rates of sexual abuse among clergy are lower than in other populations. Not to excuse the crimes that occurred. Just asking for a bit of perspective.

Just this week, the media has been talking about an internet pedophilia ring of up to 70,000 members…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42108748/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/massive-online-pedophile-ring-busted-cops/#.TjtCL7962HY

Clayton,

“From what I’ve heard, the rates of sexual abuse among clergy are lower than in other populations.”

This is a classical Catholic lie.  All Catholics tell it, but none can show any legitimate source with real data.  In other words, they’re lying.  Your own John Jay report put the number at 4%, and they cheated.  The report was voluntary, and some of the worst diocese (like LA) refused to report.  Also, they “padded” the statistics.  They included priests that were only ordained for a year or two, making the percentage smaller.

I didn’t know about the new pedophile ring (you must follow this more closely than I do), but I said the Catholic church is the world’s largest pedophile protection program, which it clearly is.  This new “ring” didn’t move known pedophiles to other parishes to rape new children, then move them again.  Only the Catholic church had the opportunity and the resources to do that, and they did it with reckless abandon.

The Catholic church has disgraced the religion by not practicing its simplest laws. 

Hopefully, there will someday be enough intelligent Catholic to throw every one of these fraudulent bishops in jail.  Otherwise, there will be no Catholics in two generations, because by then, everyone will know the truth.

Patrick O’Malley,

Of course you’re entitled to your opinion, but to call anyone who disagrees with you (or has contrary evidence) a liar is a bit much. A lie involves willfully misrepresenting the facts.

I just read the responses and I chuckled to myself. Mathew is calling on the Vatican to use the social media to reach the faithful more effectively. Yet, Mathews one article caused multitudes of miscommunication and immense hostility. Im sure Mathews article was well intended, but hey if you can’t get it right how can you get all uppity on the Catholic Church about “getting it right”. Even Peter the first Pope got it wrong….FROM DAY ONE! He misunderstood Jesus multiple of times, and ended up denying Him. So who do we Catholics think we are to expect perfection in our own age. We should be encouraging and supporting the church, not attacking it. Yes, suggestions of embracing social media are great, but at the end of the day the old saying goes ” you can’t squeeze blood from a stone”... If someone refuses to seek out their faith and be more educated on it, then it’s their choice! We all have free will. ” seek and You shall find, knock and the door will be open”.

@ Patrick O’Malkey, you are one angry bitter individual who exaggerates the truth and stretches facts to go on your tirade at priests. How would you like it if I told you I once met a Patrick who was vile awful and despicable. Does that mean EVERYONE called Patrick is vile awful and despicable. Go spread your hatred elsewhere! You have nothing but I’ll intentions posting here.

I am personally utterly sick of this unnecessary confusion.  It is not the Church that is the pedophile, but those who participated in word or deed in it.  The Chuch is not a conspiracy.  We know more about the inner workings of the Catholic Church, both good and evil, than any other organization on earth.  that it, the Church, that wholly mortal and certainly unholy entity, has committed, for aeons, horrors against nature and humanity for its own political and venal purposes is a matter of massive and highly detailed record.  this “It”, The Church, is made up or overdressed and overly self important mortals with their own religious franchise, indeed is the nature of it and no other.  Its ceremonies and rituals are wholly their own invention and, for all the practices in the world, would bring a person no closer to an eternal life than doing nothing at all.  The Church is about power, money, ambition and control.  It actively and daily demonstrates all of its venal and mortal sins with seeming impunity.  Peoples’ faith is their own and the Church can take no credit for it.  Once the world sees the Church as the business operation it merely is and has been since the 400sAD it will have a clearer understanding of what its true place is on this earth.  The church deserves neither credit or gain from the works of those who, often despite the Church, ahve done good supposedly it its name.  People will have to come to understand that the Kingdom of God is within Them- and not the brick, mortar and flesh that is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.