"unless they are compelled to do so by public outcry."
So what I'm hearing is that there should be more public outcry, and of the compelling sort (not the most efficient way of doing things and probably not pleasant on the receiving end but moral cowardice is to some extent its own reward.)
Another fascinating nugget about Church operations, not written about elsewhere - thanks!
(You two should write a book at some point about your professional experience reporting on the Church. All the President's Men probably contains one tenth the drama of deep-dive reporting on Church goings-on. A movie deal no doubt awaits, the only question is: which actors get cast for your parts? I'll leave that as an open question for your readers. ;)
Seriously though, I found this excerpt about possibly reforming pontifical secrets intriguing: "...designed with consideration for the flow of information in a digital age." It raises (among a few others) the question: Do we want Church operations to be designed for modern "flow of information" at all? I'm not sure I do - I kind of like following the edicts of an organization that considers a century to be a short term time period, and the information age to be a recent novelty. There are frustrations in this, to be sure, but overall probably many fewer than following a group that blows in the prevailing societal winds (consider Congress, for example). Also, and this would be a deal-breaker: I would not bet my eternal salvation on an outfit if, say, their bishops made regular appearances on CNN (or Fox, or etc) as part of their expected duties.
I would rather the Church err on the side of opaqueness, and leisurely decision-making. Those who cannot trust the good faith of decision-makers must ask themselves why they also entrust the shepherding of their souls to those same clerics.
Allow me to share an experience justifying the pontifical secret regarding the movement of bishops. Violating the rule can hurt people.
I was administering the registration of a national Catholic organization's conference and got an urgent call (while taking a shower). I was irritated to hear that the urgent question was from a registrant whose diocese was about to be assigned our diocese's bishop. "What is he like?" How's his administration? I was not the source he really wanted – I could only say that he openly and firmly supported controversial Church teachings.
I was able to get out of the shower and go to daily Mass, and our pastor happened to greet me. I asked him how he felt about the reassignment of our bishop, thinking it had been announced days or weeks ago. He had had no idea and gave an open immediate response, "I feel like an orphan." I still get twinges of regret when I think about it.
"unless they are compelled to do so by public outcry."
So what I'm hearing is that there should be more public outcry, and of the compelling sort (not the most efficient way of doing things and probably not pleasant on the receiving end but moral cowardice is to some extent its own reward.)
Another fascinating nugget about Church operations, not written about elsewhere - thanks!
(You two should write a book at some point about your professional experience reporting on the Church. All the President's Men probably contains one tenth the drama of deep-dive reporting on Church goings-on. A movie deal no doubt awaits, the only question is: which actors get cast for your parts? I'll leave that as an open question for your readers. ;)
Seriously though, I found this excerpt about possibly reforming pontifical secrets intriguing: "...designed with consideration for the flow of information in a digital age." It raises (among a few others) the question: Do we want Church operations to be designed for modern "flow of information" at all? I'm not sure I do - I kind of like following the edicts of an organization that considers a century to be a short term time period, and the information age to be a recent novelty. There are frustrations in this, to be sure, but overall probably many fewer than following a group that blows in the prevailing societal winds (consider Congress, for example). Also, and this would be a deal-breaker: I would not bet my eternal salvation on an outfit if, say, their bishops made regular appearances on CNN (or Fox, or etc) as part of their expected duties.
I would rather the Church err on the side of opaqueness, and leisurely decision-making. Those who cannot trust the good faith of decision-makers must ask themselves why they also entrust the shepherding of their souls to those same clerics.
"not noticeably shifted much towards transparency"
I hereby nominate this statement for the next literary award for euphemism.
Allow me to share an experience justifying the pontifical secret regarding the movement of bishops. Violating the rule can hurt people.
I was administering the registration of a national Catholic organization's conference and got an urgent call (while taking a shower). I was irritated to hear that the urgent question was from a registrant whose diocese was about to be assigned our diocese's bishop. "What is he like?" How's his administration? I was not the source he really wanted – I could only say that he openly and firmly supported controversial Church teachings.
I was able to get out of the shower and go to daily Mass, and our pastor happened to greet me. I asked him how he felt about the reassignment of our bishop, thinking it had been announced days or weeks ago. He had had no idea and gave an open immediate response, "I feel like an orphan." I still get twinges of regret when I think about it.