When Catholic missionary efforts in Asia began in earnest in the 16th century, messages from Europe to China, India or Japan could take two or three years to be delivered—if they arrived at all.

Responses sent back to Europe faced the same difficulties.

In the meantime, one or even both correspondents might die.

Given these conditions, much of the work of the Church in Asia was decided by those “on the ground.”

Disastrous exceptions, such as the “Oriental rites” decision in Rome, which forbade cultural adaptations in liturgy and Christian life, were due in part to misinformation or ignorance resulting from poor communication.

Centralisation through technology

In the 19th century, developments such as the telegraph, railroads, steamships and an international postal system made communication faster and more dependable.

With faster and more dependable communication came a new era of oversight from Rome.

One result was increased centralisation in the Church as Roman curial offices could monitor and direct far-flung Churches.

This centralisation followed a typical pattern: information flowed to the centre, and administrative directives flowed outward. Communication generally involved a limited number of participants and, often, secrecy.

The 19th-century change in communications led not only to new methods but also to a change in style, with more and more decision-making power becoming centred in Rome.

The digital revolution

We continue to live with that legacy.

Now, however, the world is undergoing a new revolution in communications that will inevitably change not only the way the Church communicates, but even the way it lives in the 21st century.

This new reality is defined by totally open communication—communication that is instantaneous, global, and often permanent.

The idea that communication can be kept private has become quaint. Now, anything someone says or does might be broadcast throughout the world in an instant, and reactions and responses come from every direction.

A cautionary tale from Spain

An example of how this new reality must be taken into account comes from Spain. The Spanish newspaper El País reported that during a sermon, Bishop Demetrio Fernandez of Cordoba claimed that a Vatican cardinal had alerted him to a conspiracy by the United Nations.

“The Minister for Family of the Papal Government, Cardinal Antonelli, told me a few days ago in Zaragoza that UNESCO has a program for the next 20 years to make half the world population homosexual.”

Since the UN is an association of nations rather than a government, it cannot impose programs on nations that do not want them.

Furthermore, given that approximately 95 percent of humanity is heterosexual, the idea of “turning” half the world’s population homosexual presents an absurd challenge—especially for an organisation already struggling to provide basic education to that same half.

Of course, fearmongering rooted in ignorance or prejudice is nothing new; such voices have always existed.

What is different now is that comments made in one sermon in Spain are instantly broadcast to the world and electronically immortalised.

Global scrutiny and ecclesial responsibility

This immediacy brings not only new reach, but also new risks. Institutions and individuals now face the challenge of universal exposure. What they say and do may be known, evaluated and commented on by the entire world.

New tools require new sensitivity and a new awareness of the foolishness of communicating carelessly or ignorantly.

• William Grimm, a native of New York City, is a missioner and presbyter who since 1973 has served in Japan, Hong Kong and Cambodia. A graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in New York, he is the publisher of UCA News.
• First published in UCANews.com. Republished with permission.