The text establishes the so-called Pontifical Commission for Cinematography, Radio and Television as a permanent organ of the Roman Curia, charged with guiding, coordinating, and influencing audiovisual media in accordance with the directives of Pius XII’s encyclical “Miranda prorsus” and subsequent prescriptions, supervising Catholic initiatives in film, radio, and television, and serving as a consultative hub for other dicasteries in all matters concerning these media. It presents itself as pastoral vigilance over powerful modern instruments, claiming to promote moral use of technology while centralizing oversight of communication.
In reality, this document inaugurates and codifies an technocratic, media-centric “pastoral” that subordinates supernatural Catholic mission to modern mass culture, betraying the kingship of Christ by adapting the Church to the world rather than subjecting the world to Christ.
Media Bureaucracy as a Programmatic Abdication of the Supernatural Mission
Already the opening formula reveals the poisoned premise. The usurper Giovanni Roncalli, styling himself “Ioannes PP. XXIII,” appeals to the munus Boni Pastoris (“office of the Good Shepherd”) to justify not a clearer proclamation of dogma, not a strengthening of discipline, not a war against heresy and sin, but the reorganization of a Curial office for cinema, radio, and television. The disproportion is itself an indictment.
He affirms that the task of the “Supreme Pontiff” obliges him to consider “every need” of the Church and “especially” those realities which, in contemporary “civilization,” significantly affect spiritual life, explicitly listing radio, television, and cinema. The hierarchy of values is silently inverted: instead of asserting, as Pius XI in Quas primas, that peace and order depend on public recognition of Christ the King and submission of states and societies to His law, this text tacitly presupposes that the Church’s pastoral agenda must be recalibrated around instruments of mass communication, as if grace must pass through the antenna and the camera.
This is not a neutral organizational choice:
– It shifts the axis of concern from the integrity of faith and sacraments to the management of media flows.
– It treats technological forms as privileged loci of moral and religious influence, encouraging a functionalist mentality: sanctity becomes “correct use of media,” not adherence to the unchanging deposit of faith.
In light of the perennial Magisterium:
– The Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX condemns the naturalist arrogance which makes man, culture, and “progress” the normative horizon. Here we see precisely such naturalistic optimism—technology as providential gift whose “apostolic” optimization becomes a central concern—without a corresponding doctrinal militancy against the ideological toxins that dominate those same media.
– The condemnation of Modernism in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi unmasks the evolutionist idea that the Church must adapt to new “forms of consciousness” and historical conditions; yet this motu proprio is structurally built upon the assumption that the Church’s presence must be reconfigured according to the technical media environment of the age.
The entire text breathes adaptation rather than conversion. This inversion—placing media management within the very definition of pastoral solicitude—already manifests the spirit of conciliar revolution.
Naturalistic Optimism and the Cult of Technique
A central motif is the repeated insistence that these media are “marvellous inventions” granted by “the most kind God” and capable of greatly contributing to “higher human culture,” “true art,” and “especially to the propagation of truth.”
At the factual level:
– The text acknowledges moral dangers, but only as a lament over “not rare” abuses—immorality, harm to Christian morals and human dignity in films, broadcasts, and television images.
– However, the core attitude remains one of enthusiastic affirmation and institutional embrace of these instruments.
This optimism is theologically and spiritually suspect.
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine:
– The Church Fathers and traditional theologians never treated worldly instruments, especially those structurally in the hands of enemies of the faith, as quasi-neutral “gifts” to be integrated at the heart of ecclesial governance. They insisted on separation from occasions of sin and from the spirit of the world (cf. 1 Jn 2:15–17), on vigilance against false doctrine (2 Tim 4:2–4), and on the primacy of preaching the word, administering the sacraments, enforcing discipline.
– Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI constantly unmasked the anti-Christian project of liberal, masonic, and revolutionary forces. Pius IX explicitly identifies masonic sects as the “synagogue of Satan” orchestrating war on the Church. It is historically and morally obvious that modern mass media in the mid-20th century were dominated precisely by these currents: secularism, moral corruption, anti-clericalism, relativism. To present these networks primarily as providential tools, demanding a Church-wide pastoral mobilization to engage them, is at best naivety, at worst complicity.
The document speaks about:
– Encouraging Catholic offices in each nation to direct and coordinate media production.
– Supporting cinema, radio, and TV initiatives for youth formation.
– Establishing a Vatican film archive.
Missing is any integral doctrinal warning that these media systems, in their philosophical and industrial roots, serve to normalize error, sensuality, and rebellion against the reign of Christ. There is no echo of the solemn rejections listed in the Syllabus:
– No denunciation of liberty of cult and expression as a principle of public order.
– No clarity that the State and social communication owe public worship and obedience to Christ the King (cf. Quas primas).
Instead, the text subtly endorses a “Catholic presence” model: be inside the circuits of cinema, radio, and television, produce “good content,” manage ratings of films, dialogue with industry, provide counsel to other Vatican offices. This horizontal activism displaces the primary supernatural end—salvation from sin, defense of dogma, condemnation of heresy—with managerial strategies.
This is the psychological foundation of post-1958 conciliarism: from guardian of Revelation to partner of culture.
Linguistic Symptoms: Bureaucratic Pastoralism and the Eclipse of Judgment
The language is revealing: cautious, institutional, technocratic, and almost entirely bereft of eschatological or sacramental horizon.
Key linguistic traits:
1. Inflated Curial legalism:
– Long juridical clauses, affirming that the Commission’s norms are “firm, valid and efficacious,” nullifying any contrary act.
– The entire force of the document concentrates on canonical consolidation of a media office.
2. Sanitized moral vocabulary:
– Morally destructive content is acknowledged, but expressed in soft terms: “pericula morumque detrimenta” (dangers and harms to morals) from images and sounds that can “destroy Christian morals and human dignity.”
– No explicit mention of grave sin, no condemnation of pornography, anti-Catholic propaganda, blasphemy, doctrinal perversion by name and species. The rhetoric is that of cultural hygiene, not of a Church anathematizing evil.
3. Rhetoric of “encouragement”:
– The text repeatedly “exhorts,” “invites,” and “recommends” that those responsible for shows follow “right and upright conscience.”
– Bishops are “mandated” to watch and use suggested “apostolic methods,” especially through national offices coordinating Catholic media activity.
The absence is more damning than the presence:
– No firm assertion that public dissemination of heresy, obscenity, and irreligion is an objective offense against God demanding suppression.
– No insistence that Catholic faithful must avoid such occasions under pain of sin.
– No reminder of Last Judgment, hell, or the need to remain in a state of grace in a corrupt environment.
Instead, we see the vocabulary that will become the trademark of the conciliar sect: pastoral accompaniment, responsibility, conscience, coordination, formation. It is the language of a moralistic NGO.
This linguistic drift corresponds exactly to propositions condemned in Lamentabili sane exitu:
– The reduction of dogma and moral law to pragmatic, historically-conditioned “pastoral” applications.
– The refusal to bind with clear dogmatic and disciplinary authority, replacing anathema sit with “we exhort,” “we recommend.”
When supernatural categories vanish from the normative idiom of such a document, the result is practical naturalism.
Doctrinal Weakening: Substituting Supernatural Authority with Media Mediation
On the theological plane, several grave distortions appear, not always in explicit sentences, but in structural choices that contradict the pre-1958 Catholic ethos.
1. Misplaced axis of vigilance
The text states that, because of the nature of these instruments, unity of direction at the level of the Apostolic See is required; hence the central Commission’s competence:
– to examine film, radio, TV productions,
– to guide Catholic groups and national offices,
– to collaborate with dicasteries and bishops.
But:
– Nowhere is affirmed that the Church’s right and duty are, first of all, to condemn errors publicly, to proscribe pernicious productions, to instruct the faithful with binding criteria.
– Instead, the Commission is presented in a quasi-consultative and promotional role, “supporting,” “encouraging,” and “directing” initiatives.
– The strong canonical language is reserved to guarantee the Commission’s bureaucratic place, not to safeguard the Deposit of Faith.
Pre-conciliar Magisterium clearly teaches:
– The Church is a perfect society with the innate right to judge and, if necessary, use coercive measures in matters regarding faith and morals (Syllabus, propositions 19, 24, 31, etc. condemned).
– Civil authority must conform law and public institutions to divine law and to the rights of the Church and of Christ the King.
Here, although not explicitly denied, these truths are turned into silent non-factors. The Church no longer speaks as sovereign judge over culture; she behaves as one participant among others, organizing her “Catholic content providers” and film archives.
2. Human conscience without doctrinal foundation
The appeal to “right and upright conscience” is detached from precise doctrinal norms. There is:
– No reassertion of objective moral law binding producers and broadcasters under pain of mortal sin.
– No reminder that public scandal and corruption of youth are sins that cry to heaven for vengeance.
– No insistence on the doctrinal obligation to avoid cooperation in disseminating error.
This resonates with the liberal idea—condemned by Pius IX and Pius X—that moral norms are substantially left to autonomous human reason and changing cultural standards. In practice, the document’s paradigm reduces to:
– “Use media well, form consciences, coordinate Catholic action.”
It is a functional democratization of judgment: everyone “of good will” is invited to wield technology “responsibly,” rather than being commanded to submit their work to the objective doctrinal and disciplinary authority of the Church.
3. Elevation of media to privileged organ of evangelization
The text portrays cinema, radio, and television as powerful means “especially” for spreading truth and forming youth. This emphasis, in itself, could be legitimate as subordinate tool; however:
– The document treats them as necessary fields requiring specialized ecclesial structures, professionalized “apostolate,” and Curial centralization.
– This fosters a mentality in which the efficacy of the Church’s mission is measured by media presence and communication strategies rather than by the Most Holy Sacrifice, sacraments, preaching of integral doctrine, and sanctity of life.
By contrast, Pius XI in Quas primas teaches that:
– True peace and restoration of society depend on proclaiming and enforcing the social Kingship of Christ.
– Public institutions (including press and schools) must recognize and serve His reign.
But in this text, there is no call for states or media systems to submit to Christ’s rights. There is only an invitation for Catholic entities to adapt within the existing media regime.
This silence is a betrayal:
– Silentium de regno Christi where it must be proclaimed constitutes material acquiescence in liberal and masonic principles condemned by the Syllabus.
– The motu proprio normalizes coexistence with secular mass media instead of challenging their ideological foundations.
Systemic Symptom: From Guardian of Dogma to Manager of Spectacle
The document must be read as a symptom of a deeper revolution rather than an isolated administrative act.
1. Institutionalization of cultural accommodation
By making this Commission a stable office of the “Apostolic See” and binding other dicasteries to consult it on media-related decisions, Roncalli:
– Embedded media-consciousness into the structural DNA of the Curia.
– Ensured that future doctrinal, disciplinary, and liturgical initiatives would be filtered through a logic of image, perception, and public communication.
This anticipates the entire subsequent development of the conciliar sect:
– “Pastoral” documents crafted for media consumption.
– Spectacularized liturgies designed for transmission.
– Reduction of doctrine to soundbites compatible with liberal democracies.
In place of the austere, supernatural, God-centred authority of the pre-1958 papacy, we see the emergence of a paramasonic technocracy: the Church as a global communications brand, with central media offices, ratings systems, and public relations strategies. The motu proprio is one of the early juridical codifications of that shift.
2. Neutralization of anti-modernist defenses
Note what is absent:
– No reference to Pascendi or Lamentabili.
– No explicit continuity with the war against Modernism.
– Instead, the motu proprio cites Pius XII’s “Miranda prorsus” selectively—emphasizing the encouragement of media—while failing to inherit the older, sharper doctrinal condemnations that anchored earlier papal warnings against cinema and radio in clear dogmatic principles.
This is a typical modernist tactic (denounced by St. Pius X):
– Retain fragments of traditional vocabulary (moral concern, pastoral duty, evocation of Providence),
– Redirect them toward a new synthesis: accommodation to modern culture, transformation of the Church into a dialogical, media-shaped organism.
3. The proto-conciliar vision of “coordinated apostolate”
The motu proprio insists on:
– National Offices in each country to coordinate Catholic media activity.
– Collaboration among episcopal conferences and the Roman office.
– Formation of youth via media, promotion of “good films,” etc.
This anticipates the entire conciliar system:
– Bureaucratized episcopal conferences,
– Commissions and councils governing every aspect of life,
– A “pastoral” apparatus that multiplies structures while diluting dogma.
The real Church, as taught by the Magisterium prior to 1958:
– Is hierarchical, monarchical, sacramental.
– Governs through clear doctrine, law, and discipline, not through endless commissions and horizontal networks.
Here, hierarchy is instrumentalized for sociological projects. The Good Shepherd is recast as Good Administrator of Audiovisual Strategy.
Silence about the Cross, Grace, and Judgment: The Gravest Omission
The instructions demand unmasking above all what the text does not say. The omissions are indeed decisive:
– No mention of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the centre of Christian life and the true source of sanctification.
– No mention of the state of grace, confession, supernatural virtue, or the necessity of interior conversion.
– No mention of the Four Last Things—death, judgment, heaven, hell—though mass media gravely endanger souls precisely by fomenting sin and unbelief.
– No clear articulation that cinema, radio, and television must be subordinated to the objective rights of Christ the King and the juridical authority of the Church, with concrete consequences: censorship, condemnation, interdiction when necessary.
The entire document operates on a horizontal plane:
– psychological impact (“souls are much moved”),
– cultural influence (“higher level of humanity, true art”),
– organizational efficiency.
This silence is not innocent. Silentium de primis (silence on the primary things) amidst effusive detail on secondary technical matters is a sign of doctrinal paralysis. As Pius XI in Quas primas vigorously affirms, only the explicit and public reign of Christ over individuals, families, and states can heal society and subject all things to God. Here, not only is such reign not demanded; it is not even mentioned. That absence is itself a practical denial.
Consequences: Laying Groundwork for the Spectacular Antichurch
The motu proprio must also be read prophetically in light of what followed:
– The “Church of the New Advent” has become a media spectacle: televised pseudo-liturgies, personality cults of usurper “popes,” ecumenical shows, interreligious rituals, all carefully staged for cameras.
– The sacred has been profaned by being reduced to content; the altar has become a podium for public relations.
By institutionally embedding a media office at the heart of the Roman structure and by framing it as an expression of pastoral charity, Roncalli:
– Helped to transform the visible “Vatican” organism into a communication machine, ready to serve the conciliar revolution.
– Shifted emphasis from lex credendi and lex orandi to lex communicandi: what matters is how the “Church” appears, how it speaks, how it is covered.
This in turn:
– Facilitated the propagation of doctrinal novelties: religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, cult of man—marketed through global media with an aura of papal legitimacy.
– Inured the faithful to discernment, rendering them consumers of curated images rather than disciples instructed by clear anathemas and sound catechisms.
Thus, this text is not a harmless administrative note; it is one of the legal stepping stones by which the structures occupying the Vatican converted themselves into a paramasonic media entity, more concerned with managing, influencing, and pleasing the world than with converting it.
Reasserting the Integral Catholic Criterion
Against the theological and spiritual bankruptcy manifested here, the constant teaching before 1958 stands as an unambiguous norm:
– Veritas non mutatur (truth does not change): dogma and moral law are immutable; no technological development can shift the substance of the Church’s mission.
– Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church no salvation): the aim of all ecclesial action—including any engagement with media—must be the conversion of souls to the one true Church, not dialogue, presence, or cultural prestige.
– The Church possesses innate rights over public teaching, worship, and moral order; she must judge, condemn, and, when necessary, demand that authorities restrain evil communication. Anything less is dereliction (cf. the principles reaffirmed by Pius IX in the Syllabus and by Pius X against Modernism).
– Christ is King not only of hearts but of societies, laws, and institutions. Every medium of communication is bound to His law. When it systematically serves error and vice, the correct Catholic response is not to canonically enthrone it as “providential” and adapt the Church to it, but to combat its abuses with clarity, condemnation, and separation.
Measured against these principles, “Boni Pastoris” reveals itself as an early manifesto of capitulation: the shepherd no longer guards the flock from the wolves; he negotiates with the wolves about programming guidelines and seeks a reserved seat in their studio.
To restore the integral Catholic faith is to repudiate such documents as symptomatic products of the conciliar usurpation and to return to the firm, anti-liberal, anti-modernist line of the true Magisterium, in which supernatural ends, not technological fashions, determine the Church’s action and laws.
Source:
Boni pastoris (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025