“Know your audience!” This well-known maxim is standard advice for anyone engaged in public speaking or writing. It reminds the speaker or author that effective communication takes into consideration the intended recipient. As the Thomistic adage goes: The received is received according to the mode of the receiver.
Accordingly, one might convey the same fundamental notion to one group of people in a different manner than to another group of people. Exemplifying this was a recent trend in which experts were recorded explaining the same topic at different levels of difficulty (e.g., middle school, high school, university, and graduate levels). They were interesting videos because they showed the skill with which said expert could adapt their approach based on what they could expect the specific person in front of them to already know or be capable of understanding. That is an important skill, whether in the classroom, giving a speech, or publishing a book or article.
There are other differences in audiences that can determine whether, when, and how you convey information. Some things are not appropriate for certain audiences altogether. Other things need to be expressed in a way that is more likely to get the desired outcome, given the dispositions of the hearer. St. Paul says something similar: “And so, brothers and sisters, I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food” (1 Cor 3:1–2).
All of the above, however, is predicated on the existence of different audiences. Certainly, there are still different audiences for some modes of communication. Only a select group of people is going to bother reading academic theology articles, for instance. Yet with the advent of the internet and social media platforms, there is an ever-greater likelihood that someone who was not part of the intended audience will listen to what one has said.
While the poster might think they are helping to rally the troops to improve the Church in some way, they might inadvertently be driving people away from the Church.
In some cases, this fact is innocuous. In other cases, it could cause tremendous harm. For example, there are several Catholic-operated YouTube channels that specialize in posting gripes about the Church. The channel owners might be directing their commentary to other Catholics, but many non-Catholics are also likely to watch. As a result, while the poster might think they are helping to rally the troops to improve the Church in some way, they might inadvertently be driving people away from the Church. On numerous occasions, I have seen self-declared devout Catholics cause other people to second-guess their consideration of entrance into the Church, based on the content and/or manner of speech they encounter on such platforms.
For related reasons, this is why Donum Veritatis and other documents state that a qualified theologian may express concerns over some nondefinitive magisterial formulation in appropriate forums (e.g., academic journals, monographs, and conferences) but not via mass media (see no. 30). Otherwise, the theologian can—even if inadvertently—lead the faithful to distrust the magisterium more broadly. Not everything is fit for every audience.
To make matters worse, we live in a day and age where, even if one intentionally directs one’s comments to a specific group and formulates one’s verbiage accordingly, others can—and sometimes do—distribute those comments to a wider audience. The growing habit of people sharing screenshots of text messages, emails, or group chats is an example. Anything and everything can be shared to the general public, with or without one’s permission.
The problem of unintended audiences, in turn, leads to another issue. Because people are aware that broader audiences might be listening in, authors or speakers might feel pressured to alter their comments so they are more fitting for a broad audience. This often leads to the watering down of the message in order to be the least offensive to as many people as possible.
There is a tendency, then, to craft one’s message in a way most suitable to the lowest common denominator. In an age where “accompaniment” is taken quite seriously, there is a concomitant fear of “offending” anyone. Thus, messages are often accommodated to people “on the margins.” Communications are made as palpable to such people as possible so as to not put obstacles in the way of them taking the Catholic faith seriously.
While—in one sense—this is an understandable approach, it generates an opposing problem: Those who are more well formed become scandalized. When key elements of doctrine are left out or the gravity of particular issues is downplayed, committed Catholics can become understandably upset. They are legitimately concerned that the fullness of the faith is being diluted or—in some cases—even betrayed. Thus, in trying to reach people “on the margins,” one is alienating those who are firm believers.
I have seen self-declared devout Catholics cause other people to second-guess their consideration of entrance into the Church, based on the content and/or manner of speech they encounter on such platforms.
Why is that important? Because alongside instructing the ignorant is the call to confirm the faith of our brethren. Being a faithful Catholic today can be quite challenging. Our world has become extremely secular and even antagonistic to Catholicism. When the message of the gospel and Catholic morality are always minimized in order to cater to the marginalized, those who are adhering to the faith and—in some instances—being persecuted for it can feel abandoned by their own hierarchy or by fellow Catholics. When people undergo true conversion and turn away from the sins of their past, they can be ridiculed by their former associates. Then, messages from prominent Catholics—lay or clerical—that seem to downplay the importance of Church teaching on such matters can be thrown in their faces: “Why do you take it so seriously, if your own bishops and priests don’t seem to think it’s a big deal?” The committed Catholic knows full well what the actual doctrine is, but “messaging” can obscure this in public consciousness, making him look like the outlier when trying to live the faith to the full.
What is more, the tendency to speak to the lowest common denominator does not actually constitute accompaniment, no matter how ubiquitously that term is used to justify soft language. Undoubtedly, it is a worthwhile effort to try to help those antagonistic to Catholic doctrine and morality to become more open to Catholicism. Once that step has been made, the next stages should aim at helping them to embrace Catholicism in its fullness. But that cannot happen unless more and more of the truth is proclaimed. St. Paul did not stop at feeding with milk; eventually, he provided solid food. Accompaniment is not accompaniment if no advancement is made. If those on the margins are only pandered to and not—slowly but surely—helped to advance in their morality and spirituality, then there is no accompaniment but only stagnation. The result: the person on the margins is not helped, and the faithful who witness the pandering are left feeling betrayed.
Modesty in speech is tricky. It requires not only that one speaks the truth but that one conveys it to an appropriate audience, at an appropriate time, and in a fitting way. It can be immodest to give too much info to those still in spiritual infancy. It can be equally immodest to fail to give such info to those who are more mature and who need that extra information to grow spiritually. It could be immodest to treat one person or group with harsh words, where in other cases it might be called for.
What is one to do when the audience is practically anyone and everyone? That is not an easy thing to determine. Quite frankly, many online Catholic commentators don’t bother. They are used to saying whatever they want, to whomever they want, however they want (which is often with utter arrogance and nastiness, unfortunately). Other commentators are too timid, afraid to offend anyone who might not already agree with the Church’s doctrine.
When it comes to evangelizing, a big issue is that not every tactic works for everyone. Some people are converted by being bluntly confronted with their errors. Others are pushed further away by aggressive language that does not show any semblance of compassion or respect.
I do not have any ready-made solutions to these problems. But I believe that the first step is acknowledging that these are, indeed, problems. We simultaneously have groups of Catholics who are too brash and off-putting to effectively win souls for Christ and other groups who are so accommodating to the margins that they verge on presenting a false gospel and denying Christ before the world.
Modesty in speech requires the virtue of prudence. The virtue of prudence considers the audience. When there is a loss of targeted audiences, crafting the message prudently becomes more difficult. I have no easy solutions. I raise this out of concern and to invite further reflection, individually and collectively. Like any virtue, the correct path often lies in the mean. The question is: How do we effectively communicate the truth and goodness of the gospel without being either repulsively unpalatable or feebly capitulatory to secular societal hangups? Too often, Catholics tend toward one of these extremes or the other. We must find another way to proclaim the truth in love.