What is changing in papal communication with the rise of social media?

Abstract

The last twenty years have brought profound changes in communication and technology. World leaders have extended their communication into the digital space. In the Catholic world, we speak of a digital papacy, seeing the growth of a community following the Pope on social media. Our study looks at how the language of the Holy See is changing in media-related texts published annually for World Communications Day. The research corpus consists of the messages of the last three popes – from 1995, when the vatican.va domain was created, up to 2022. Using textual analysis, we show that, in addition to the normal change in terminology, the approach of the popes as the ecclesiastical authorities to the community is changing, and the community itself is also changing. For example, the word ‘must,’ which was widely used in messages until the rise of social networks, has completely disappeared from the texts in the last few years. Our study leads us to posit that not only is there a change in how the popes address the Catholic community, but there is also a paradigm shift in society and culture.

Keywords:

• Papacy
• Francis
• communication
• media
• theology

1. Introduction

‘Preach the Gospel, and if necessary, even with words’. (Francis, Address Of His Holiness Pope Francis To Employees Of The Dicastery For Communication On The Occasion Of The Plenary Assembly, 2019a)

Religious messages have always been disseminated through the media, whether through a book, an icon, a mural, or television (Hjarvard 2008). In recent decades, the space for religious communication has expanded to the virtual sphere, popularizing religion beyond traditional religious institutions. The way the world’s authorities present themselves is changing. Encounters with religious authority are most often based on ‘following’ everyday communication on social media. Pope Francis on Instagram gives his followers an opportunity to follow his opinions and thoughts. Through apps, the religious community is connected to the activities and opinions of its leader. Social networks provide a new space and allow virtual encounters far beyond the confines of closed religious societies. While there is currently a huge emphasis on visual presentation, we will focus on the less visible but fundamental transformations in papal texts. In this article, we present the results of research that examined the transformation of language in the Popes’ messages for the annual World Communications Day. Because we associate the media revolution of recent years mainly with the use of the Internet, we examine the period since 1995 when the Internet began to be used more extensively by companies and institutions, gradually becoming an essential communication space. With the advent of social networking and Internet 2.0, virtual space has become the world’s most visited sanctuary.

1.1. The image of the Church in the world of media

We are witnessing a paradoxical combination of high media attention to religious issues in the public sphere and a slow but steady decline in interest in organized religion. This decline is not necessarily synonymous with a decline in religious belief per se, but may be accompanied by the emergence of new individualized forms of religious ideas and practices. Research on religious behaviour in the online space began to develop in the 1990s. Religious scholars, theologians, and media communication experts began to question the extent to which newly emergent online behaviours impacted the offline life of religious communities, thus forming the basic discourse of research (Campbell and Tsuria 2021, 1–2). The mediatization of religion (Hjarvard 2008) is changing, and at the same time secularization (Lincoln 1994) is causing both the decline and transformation of religious organizations, practices, and beliefs (Hjarvard 2012). The widely used term secularization (Berger and Luckmann 1966) has proven inaccurate to describe the current trends in religious life, and more recently, also in the sociology of religion; the term ‘deinstitutionalization’ of religious life has come into use. Online forms of religious behaviour show a strong trend away from offline community towards an online deinstitutionalized and individualized mode of religious practice. It is therefore quite understandable that the bishops of Rome are entering this space to become active creators of online religious communities, or rather co-creators of this new culture (Benedict XVI 2009).

Researchers have been observing the transformation of religious experience due to the opening of a new digital space for communication. Professor Heidi Campbell and other researchers name several waves in which they describe the process of integration of spiritual space into digital reality (Campbell and Vitullo 2019).

Religious rituals are performed, watched, and experienced online. At a time when information can be endlessly multiplied and vast amounts of data stored in the form of the binary code, the culture is in a way returning to the beginning of Christianity, when the Church communicated basic religious ideas to the wider community primarily through a well-thought-out visual presentation. Just as in the early centuries, when the Christian tradition skilfully embedded essential messages into thousands of stones of early Christian mosaics, today it communicates to the public through mosaics composed of Instagram photos. Catholic leaders have a team of ‘mosaic artists’ who create mosaics from ‘pebbles’ of short texts and photos. The mosaic is a media device of early Christianity that is currently making a comeback as a virtual alternative to assembling a picture of the sacred from fragments. The short messages are carefully crafted and accompanied by images on Instagram and other platforms. Pope Francis is one of the most followed world leaders on social media. His Twitter account is visited by far more non-Catholics than Catholics (Narbona 2016).

The form of communication is popularized and aims far beyond the boundaries of a closed community. As in the early days of Christianity, its ideals are spread through stories inscribed in the ‘images and mosaics’ that currently present the head of the Church on social media. Technology is evolving rapidly while people’s mentality remains with proven certainties. The dissemination of religious themes through images has been a tradition from the very beginning of Christianity. In the early centuries of Christianity, there were few literate people, and therefore an idea shared by image had a far greater impact than text. Today, although people can read, the image with its short text remains the main medium of the message. The ambivalence of this approach is emphasized by the disparate perceptions of the influence of ‘new media’ by Church leaders. Although official Church texts have long supported the use of new communication channels for evangelisation, we often encounter a negative attitude from the Church hierarchy (Downey 2014). Finally, it is interesting to note that although all three popes of the Internet era have not hesitated to promote and use this communication tool, none of them can or could use it by themselves – they have a growing team of specialists. The Dicastery for Communication, bringing together all the Vatican’s media platforms since 2015, has the highest budget of any Vatican organization (Tornielli 2022).

1.2. Transforming social ties – what is hidden in the text?

We will follow the process of change in the communication of Vatican leaders through interesting linguistic phenomena that can be traced in the texts written for World Communications Day. This day was declared after the Second Vatican Council as the first international day proclaimed by the Vatican. In the messages, which are published annually on the feast of St. Francis de Sales (24 January), the popes reflect on the development of the media and provide stimuli for new reflections on the media in relation to the Church. Here we examine the texts of the last three popes, starting in 1995 when the Roman Catholic Church began to write its history on the Internet as well. (The top-level domain vatican.va was created that year.) We will look at the process of change in society related to the advent of virtual communication space through a textual analysis focused on content related to the use of pronouns. In this way, we will trace the changing relationship between ecclesiastical authority and the religious community.

A textual analysis of official Church texts has also recently been carried out by Michele Martini, who focused on the work with the words mass media, digital media, and new media and showed how the terms are used not only in World Communications Day messages but also in encyclicals and other official Vatican texts. He demonstrated that themes related to media issues increasingly permeate not only texts primarily aimed at this but also other official Vatican texts. His study confirms the growing influence of the media on the complex communication of the Holy See (Martini 2022). Also related to our research is a study by William McCormick, who analyses the focus of Pope Francis’s communication strategy on the people. He finds certain populist elements in his speeches and points out their transformation into something more constructive than political populism. The book The Secret Life of Pronouns by James W. Pennebaker helped us conceptualize the research of pronouns (Pennebaker 2011).

2. Methodology

The aim of our research is to clarify how the communication of the highest representative of the Roman Catholic Church with the community is changing with the onset of digital media and at the same time how this community is changing. The research corpus in this case will be the popes’ World Communications Day messages. These are, along with other messages for various occasions, regularly produced once a year and are available on the vatican.va website. The texts have been selected since the internet began to mean a significant change for society and the Vatican was preparing to launch its website. We have previously described the change in the popes’ approach to the community they address, pointing out the reduction in the use of the word ‘must’ in the article ‘The Papacy in the Digital Age – The End of the Imperative’ (Müllerová and Franc 2022). While both John Paul II and Benedict XVI routinely use the word ‘must’ or ‘should’, Francis is gradually abandoning the use of such words. As of 2018, they are almost non-existent in his messages (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Representation of the words MUST, SHOULD, HAVE TO in World Communications Day messages from 1995 to 2022.

In the context of the synodal process initiated by Pope Francis, this shift in the means of expression of the current Bishop of Rome should also be interpreted as a possible programmatic change that is part of a systemic change in the understanding of authority in the Church. Given the extent of this text and its methodological and thematic framework, we will not address this issue in detail.

Apart from the disappearance of some concepts and the emergence of others, after a thorough reading of the texts, we noticed an almost invisible, but in some way very perceptible change in the popes’ relationship to the target group or community. It seemed that not only the author of the message was changing in the timeline, but also the target group – the audience to whom the texts are addressed – was changing over time. We decided to examine the texts a second time, but this time from a different perspective.

For the research we chose textual analysis of content. All texts have been downloaded from the official Vatican website (vatican.va) and organized chronologically. The research went through several stages:

• Phase 1: Research and hypothesis formulation. Thorough reading of all texts, searching for new meanings. Many themes emerged in this phase, but we were intrigued by a noticeable change in the attitude towards the readers addressed. Who is the Pope addressing? In what way does he do this? After a close reading, a change in the use of personal pronouns emerged. What do the words THEY – YOU – WE mean and to whom are they addressed? Who is ‘WE’?

• Phase 2: Text analysis using NVivo software. The software helped to classify the emergence of concepts. The increased sensitivity to pronouns led us to remove them from the default forbidden words in NVivo. The analysis was carried out from English texts, although we also looked to see if we could observe the same phenomena in the Italian versions.¹ The review uncovered the amount and location on the timeline of the pronouns THEY – YOU – WE and their meaning in relation to other words.

• Phase 3: This is followed by a manual textual analysis of the pronouns, placing the changes in their use in a social context. The research question is: Why and how does Pope Francis work to such an extent with the concept of the pronoun ‘WE’?

A sample analysis of the use of pronouns can be found in Pennebaker’s book, where he describes in detail the use of the word ‘WE’ and all that it can mean. His research shows that the use of the pronoun ‘WE’ by leaders can have very tricky implications. For example, in the case of John Kerry – a candidate for the US Presidency, whose advisors recommended that he use the pronoun ‘WE’ more often at the expense of the pronoun ‘I’, later analysis suggested that the increased use of ‘WE’ probably did not help him in the election because he did not identify with the term and used it artificially in a negative relationship with the community. In contrast, another Pennebaker survey of thousands of blogs on the Internet demonstrated how the frequency of ‘WE’ usage changes in a community the moment that there is a desire to demonstrate a sense of belonging and unity. The survey compared Internet blogs before and after September 11, 2001, and found that a few hours after the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, the pronoun ‘I’ changed to ‘WE’ to a massive degree. Since the biggest change in pronoun usage in the texts we examined happened with this word, let us take another look at how Pennebaker characterizes the meanings of the pronoun ‘WE’ in different contexts:

• WE as you and I – it presents the closest connection, which is very desirable, although in some Asian cultures (Japan, Korea) this attitude is less desirable – people in these nations are not inclined to identify with a larger group and experience it as being pressured.

• WE and you – the pronoun ‘WE’ characterizes a defined group that does not include the addressed subject.

• WE meant as you – ‘WE’ is addressed to someone but does not include the speaker. Usually when something needs to be done, but the speaker wants to forgo the direct request: We should do something – meaning: you do it.

• WE as I – the royal we: We have decided to grant clemency.

• Vague WE – mostly political: e.g., We need a better future. In this case it is difficult to determine all those to whom this pronoun ‘WE’ refers (Pennebaker 2011).

• The specification of the use of the pronoun ‘WE’ will continue to be useful in our theological evaluation of the implications of this transformation, and in assessing which model prevails and which confirms the hypothesis of the transformation of the authority of the popes and the transformation of the community.

3. Research

The research was conducted in two phases. The first research phase will show how the amount of personal pronouns changes in the popes’ messages and how the importance of personal pronouns increases in relation to other words used. In the second phase, we focus on examining their meaning in terms of content.

3.1. How we work with media and how media work with us

The first step of the research builds on previous findings (Müllerová and Franc 2022) that some words of importance are disappearing from the texts of papal messages and some words are being introduced. Paradoxically, we did not find the biggest changes in the use of new words related to modern technology, although these changes are also interesting to observe (Campbell 2013), but we were intrigued by the change in the use of the most common words. When we looked at imperatives in the previous study, we found that the verb MUST had not only disappeared in some of Francis’s texts in the case of media messages (Figure 1), but when we checked other messages, we verified that this decision was programmatic and applied to other texts by Francis as well. Yet his predecessor Benedict XVI, for example, used both the words MUST and SHOULD six times in the text of his 2009 World Communications Day message.

As we can see in the graph, the word MUST has not appeared in the texts for the last 4 years. The graph also shows that the densest occurrence of the words MUST and SHOULD can be found in the period of the emergence of new communication platforms – social networks, after 2007. So much for our previous research.

Interesting findings about the imperative led us to consider what other changes in the text accompany the expansion of the digital world and directly affect the recipients of the message. John Paul II, at the end of the millennium, addresses spiritual administrators and sends a message through them to media professionals. The pronoun ‘THEY’ is characteristic of this stage. The messages are addressed to ‘them’. This is typical of the 1994 message, which, in our series of texts, still anticipates the Internet theme and focuses on television as the greatest source of information. ‘Television is now the main source of news, information, and entertainment for countless families, shaping their attitudes and opinions, values and patterns of behaviour’ (John Paul II 1994). We deliberately choose a typical example from the ‘pre-internet’ era and immediately present a typical contemporary message for comparison: ‘Only if we pay attention to who we listen to, what we listen to, and how we listen can we perfect the art of communication, the essence of which is not theory or technique, but ‘the openness of heart that makes intimacy possible’ (Francis 2022a). The two quotations differ particularly in their dynamic approach to collaboration. In the 1990s, the text reflects the situation in the media world, where information travels from one centre (the mass media) to a large community (the passive recipients of information). In contrast, the current text characterizes the shift in media communication to the level: we can all communicate with everyone in the media space. We can (and we should) actively influence what communication looks like.

3.2. Change of addressee and the journey from THEM to US

There are countless examples of how third person sentences gradually change into first-person plural sentences. In addition, we see the number of pronouns gradually increasing. In Figures 2 and 3, we can see that the time when the number of personal pronouns is increasing directly correlates with the time when social media is becoming dominant in world communication.

Figure 2. Representation of personal pronouns in World Communications Day messages from 1995 to 2022.

Figure 3. Number of social network users in 2004 – 2018 (Ortiz-Ospina 2019).

Not only is the number of pronouns in the texts increasing with the advent of social media, but the ‘tell them’ and ‘they should’ communication strategies have been changing since 2008, and we see a breakthrough increase in the use of the pronoun ‘WE’. Interestingly, the change in language does not completely coincide with the change of the popes. The onset of the new use of pronouns happens during the pontificate of Benedict XVI, and the full force of the onset of ‘WE’ is seen with the arrival of Francis (2013), where the pronoun ‘WE’ is already visibly preferred.

3.3. The pronoun ‘WE’ is taking centre stage

Let’s look at where pronouns occur in relation to other words. In NVivo, we generated a word cloud from a selection of the top 100 most used words in the texts for each pope, and it is significant to see how the words change in the very centre of the cloud (see Figure 4). Word cloud ranks words by distance from the centre – most used, to the edge – less used. We have not included words like prepositions and conjunctions.

Figure 4. Word cloud – Pope John Paul II's messages.

For John Paul II, ‘THEY’ and ‘THEIR’ were among the most used words. At the very centre is the word ‘media’. This, too, as we shall see and as Michele Martini’s research also records, has seen a definite shift with other popes. For Benedict XVI (see Figure 5), the word ‘media’ is replaced by the word ‘communications’ and for Francis (see Figure 6) the central word changes to ‘WE’. We note here an interesting shift from words that express journey and mediation to the ontological ‘WE’.

Figure 5. Word cloud – Pope Benedict XVI's messages.

Figure 6. Word cloud – Pope Francis’s messages.

In the word cloud for Pope Benedict XVI, the pronouns ‘WE’, ‘OUR’ and ‘THEIR’ meet around the central ‘communication’ and the receding but still central ‘media’. Not only does the word ‘media’ recede from the very centre, but ‘THEY’ recedes to a second level. In its place, ‘WE’ and ‘OUR’ are now among the six most used words, and ‘THEIR’ remains. ‘Media’ is replaced by ‘communications’. The shift in the use of pronouns continues with Francis. ‘WE’, together with ‘OUR’, moves to the very centre. ‘Media’ disappears, and we now see ‘listening’ and ‘stories’.

As is evident from the word cloud, the keywords are phrases about listening to the story. Listening to the story is something we associate closely with the challenge of ‘WE’ and ‘OURS’ and it addresses something we can all do, and we like to do. This leads us to examine further the number of possessive pronouns and we see that Figure 7 replicates the process that occurred with personal pronouns.

Figure 7. Representation of possessive pronouns in World Communications Day messages from 1995 to 2022.

The use of ‘OUR’ is growing significantly with the advent of social networks. The words ‘WE’ and ‘OUR’ are at the forefront of messages at a time when many studies describe the loneliness, individualisation and alienation caused by spending time on social networks (Berezan, Krishen, and Jenveja 2019).

3.4. John Paul II

We will now analyse in more detail the meaning with which pronouns are used over time and how their meaning changes in relation to the addressees of the messages. We selected sentences from the texts in which any personal pronoun occurs in relation to the addressees and searched for the gradual change of address. In John Paul II's writings there are often texts that challenge people to do something but do not address them directly. The message is presumably addressed to priests who are supposed to pass it on.

Here is an example from the ‘television era’; 1994 was the year of the family and the message is on the topic Family and Television:

I wish especially to highlight the responsibilities of parents, of the men and women of the television industry, of public authorities, and of those with pastoral and educational duties in the Church. In their hands lies the power to make television an ever more effective medium in helping families to fulfil their role as a force for moral and social renewal. (John Paul II 1994)

In the same 1994 message, it appears 4 times that ‘parents should’, and several times that authorities or TV staff should do something. The task is always directed at ‘THEM’. In the message the idea that ‘THEY’ should do something occurs 12 times. Not once should someone do something as ‘I’, ‘YOU’, or ‘WE’.

The following year brings no difference:

Those that work in the sensitive field of cinema must as communicators remain open to dialogue and to the reality that surrounds them. They must undertake to highlight the most important realities with films… (John Paul II 1995)

Again, we encounter an imperative – a task for someone to whom this message needs to be delivered. Here the Pope John Paul II does not specify a particular addressee. The pronouns ‘WE’ and ‘YOU’ do appear in the text, but they do not refer to addressing anyone or are part of a quotation from the Bible. In 1996, when the theme of the message is devoted to the role of women in society, there is again no direct address; unless we count the salutation at the beginning of the message ‘Dear Brothers and Sisters’:

Fortunately, there is a growing awareness that women must be enabled to play their part in the solution of the serious problems of society and of society’s future. (John Paul II 1996, n. 4)

Women themselves can do much to foster better treatment of women in the media: by promoting sound media education programmes, by teaching others, especially their families… (ibid., n. 8)

Moreover, women can and should prepare themselves for positions of responsibility and creativity in the media… (n. 8)

In the following year 1997, we first encounter the more specific plural ‘WE’:

Cooperation also means that we come to know each other better. At times, relations between the Church and the media can be marred by mutual misunderstanding which breeds fear and distrust. It is true that Church culture and media culture are different; indeed, at certain points there is a stark contrast. (John Paul II 1997)

If we consider Prof. Pennebaker’s categories of ‘WE’ above, we can clearly see that we have an example of a category of ‘WE’ and ‘THEM’. So, the Church is a completely different community than the media – even the author of the message sets them against each other.

In the 1999 message we observe a slow shift to a dynamic concept of the ‘WE’ address. The change is that the static ‘WE’ that designates a community becomes a more dynamic ‘WE’ capable of joint activity. For the first time in the reporting period, ‘WE’ come, and a year later ‘WE’ must:

On the journey of human searching, the Church wishes to befriend the media, knowing that every form of cooperation will be for the good of everyone. Cooperation also means that we come to know each other better. (John Paul II 1999)

We must tell the good news to all who are willing to listen. (John Paul II 2000)

The imperative still plays a role, and we are still at the level of ‘WE’ and ‘THEM’ (in this case, those who are willing to listen). Since 2001, when information about the Internet first appeared in the messages and when two special Vatican texts on the Internet (Pontifical Council for Social Communications 2002) were published, the Pope’s approach to addressing has also changed. It is still about ‘WE’ and the imperative:

In the secret of our heart, we have listened to the truth of Jesus; now we must proclaim that truth from the housetops. (John Paul II 2001)

Then further in the text returning to ‘THEM’:

…Christian communicators have a prophetic task, a vocation: to speak out against the false gods and idols of the day – materialism, hedonism… Above all, they have the duty and privilege to declare the truth – the glorious truth about human life… (John Paul II 2001)

The following year, 2002, the question arises for the first time as to how we can do something together:

How do we build upon the first contact and exchange of information which the Internet makes possible?… How can we ensure that the information and communications revolution which has the Internet as its prime engine will work in favour of the globalization of human development and solidarity, objectives closely linked to the Church’s evangelizing mission? (John Paul II 2002)

We follow the pronoun ‘WE’ associated with a question and uncertainty. The ‘WE’ that Pennebaker characterizes as the ‘WE’ that comes at the moment associated with the crisis. In the nine years so far that we have been following the messages, not once has Pope John Paul II asked how we are going to do something together. He is asking it at this defining moment, when it is clear that the Internet and the new structure of communication will bring something as new and revolutionary as, for example, the printing press has been in history. At the same time, the question is for US as a church. This is where the interesting new context of ‘WE’ in John Paul II's messages ends. In subsequent texts, ‘WE’ appears only sporadically and in an unspecific sense, e.g., ‘we read’ etc. Interestingly, the same fate befalls the word ‘internet’, which is not found in the messages until the end of John Paul II's pontificate.

It may be just a coincidence that the last ‘WE’ in the dynamic sense is a question about whether we have the ability to hold our own in the new space and culture of the Internet, but it does support Prof. Pennebaker’s theory that when external uncertainty and danger arrive, communities tend to pull together, and this is manifested by the greater occurrence of the word ‘WE’ (Pennebaker 2011).

3.5. Benedict XVI

With the beginning of the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the use of pronouns has not changed significantly. The change occurs around 2008 and 2009, when the popularity of the then-new social networks increases worldwide. In a text dedicated to new technologies, we find these words:

When we find ourselves drawn towards other people, when we want to know more about them and make ourselves known to them, we are responding to God’s call – a call that is imprinted in our nature as beings created in the image and likeness of God, the God of communication and communion.

The desire for connectedness and the instinct for communication that are so obvious in contemporary culture are best understood as modern manifestations of the basic and enduring propensity of humans to reach beyond themselves and to seek communion with others. In reality, when we open ourselves to others, we are fulfilling our deepest need and becoming more fully human. (Benedict XVI 2009)

For the first time, we have the opportunity to observe the pronoun ‘WE’ in the relationship between US – it means ‘I’ and ‘YOU’. The group ‘WE’ is not defined by function, rank or belonging to a group. The need for communication between US is connected to God’s purpose. The writer is not placing anything in opposition here. It is the first ‘WE’ in the sense of the closest community of ‘YOU’ and ‘I’, and the text describes communication through new technologies, i.e., paradoxically at a distance.

Two years later, a similar pattern to that found in John Paul II is repeated. A sudden increase in ‘WE’ and at the same time there is uncertainty, questions. ‘WE’ is associated with danger. In 2011, ‘WE’ appears 12 times in the text.

…we are living through a period of vast cultural transformation.

…we are confronted with the extraordinary potential of the internet and the complexity of its uses.

Does the danger exist that we may be less present to those whom we encounter in our everyday life? Is there is a risk of being more distracted because our attention is fragmented and absorbed in a world ‘other’ than the one in which we live? Do we have time to reflect critically on our choices and to foster human relationships which are truly deep and lasting? (Benedict XVI 2011)

A year later, the pronoun ‘WE’ occurs 18 times in the message – the highest number during Benedict’s pontificate. Paradoxically, the highest appearance of the pronoun ‘WE’ is associated with the theme of silence. As we know from other studies, the theme of silence was Benedict’s hallmark (Blanco 2018).

In silence, we are better able to listen to and understand ourselves; ideas come to birth and acquire depth; we understand with greater clarity what it is we want to say and what we expect from others; and we choose how to express ourselves. By remaining silent we allow the other person to speak, to express him or herself; and we avoid being tied simply to our own words and ideas without them being adequately tested. (Benedict XVI 2012)

During Benedict’s pontificate, the rhetoric in the texts changed fundamentally, from ‘THEM’ to ‘WE’. This happened in the years when social media experienced a global boom. For the first time, the word ‘WE’ has the meaning of ‘WE’ as a community that transcends the boundaries of WE Church dignitaries, WE Catholics, and WE believers. He doesn’t draw attention to it, but at the same time, he doesn’t limit the community itself or set it against any other community. The boundary of ‘WE’ here has become the boundary of a broad community of people, while remaining personalized, and the concept is not lost in the ballast of ‘WE’ in which no one can find themselves, as is sometimes the case, for example, in political campaigning speeches.

3.6. Francis

The very first words of Pope Francis’ first message are characteristic of his rhetoric, which includes ‘WE’ with the meaning ‘we are all in the same boat’.

Today we are living in a world which is growing ever “smaller” and where, as a result, it would seem to be easier for all of us to be neighbours. (Francis 2014)

The first sentence contains the identification of who ‘WE’ are. It is ‘everyone’ in an ever-shrinking world. This very first sentence already implies that it is easier not to divide, another great theme of Francis. And the very first paragraph suggests the importance of coming together in a world that is not exactly welcoming. The pronoun ‘WE’ appears frequently in the first two messages − 32 times in each. Francis identifies with this group of ‘WE’. The whole text is shaped by the pronoun ‘WE’. Let us recall Francis’s word cloud, which has ‘WE’ at the very centre. Three powerful themes emerge from the texts:

• ‘WE’ as a community

• technology as a call to evangelism

• technology as the enemy

Technology appears to be in the opposition very often in his texts. According to Martini’s research, there is even a growing negative sentiment in Francis’ texts in relation to the media. It is more explicit than in the texts of his two predecessors (Martini 2022). When we put these facts alongside the enormous media expansion to the social media that Francis has achieved, an interesting question arises. What do these three motives have in common?

Let’s now look at the meaning of the pronoun ‘WE’. From many of Professor Pennebaker’s studies it appears that the pronouns ‘WE’ and ‘OUR’ begin to increase in communication in a crisis situation when we need to come together. It also proves that when such a crisis situation comes, people are not only better able to connect with each other, but they can also be more resilient to outside influences. Many examples show that leaders who were able to work adequately with the concepts of I – WE – OURS in a crisis increased their popularity in the community during the crisis. Can we apply this theory to the Popes’ approach to the current social situation walking the line between physical and digital religious space? Is it possible that a change of address accompanies a crisis? Is this shift a manifestation of crisis communication?

Since 2008, we have often encountered in messages a call to engage in virtual space in various forms of communication and evangelisation. In 2019, by contrast, the title of the message calls for a return from the networks to the human community: ‘We are members one of another (Eph 4:25). From social network communities to the human community’. The Internet is associated with danger several times further on in the text.

Let us cite a few examples from history where social leaders have spoken powerfully in moments of threat and need for greater belonging, using the pronoun ‘WE’ to express togetherness suggestively:

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender … (Churchill 1940)

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day. (King 1963)

And let us consider how many common features we can find in the texts of Pope Francis:

When we remember the love that created and saved us, when we make love a part of our daily stories, when we weave the tapestry of our days with mercy, we are turning another page. We no longer remain tied to regrets and sadness, bound to an unhealthy memory that burdens our hearts; rather, by opening ourselves to others, we open ourselves to the same vision of the great storyteller. (Francis 2020)

We find several similar elements in the text:

• ‘WE’ as a strong community with a common theme.

• A narrative approach to change – what do ‘WE’ do together?

• Lyrical and poetic elements used at the moment when the reader/listener expects the highest importance.

• We can get out of a crisis together – ‘WE’ are the ones who will get out of it.

• ‘WE’ as a community also connected to the transcendent reality that is always present.

Thus, ‘WE’ as a community is characterised by listening, communication, and dialogue. The messages from the last two years build on each other thematically. The 2021 message was dedicated to vision, followed by hearing in 2022. For both texts, the call for a personal encounter continues:

“Come and see” is the simplest method to get to know a situation. It is the most honest test of every message, because, in order to know, we need to encounter, to let the person in front of me speak, to let his or her testimony reach me. (Francis 2021)

The ‘WE group’ is changing from the broadest concept of the whole society to smaller groups. ‘WE’ is returning to the intimate ‘YOU’ and ‘I’. The idea of a connected society through virtual networks is changing into a necessity of personal encounters. Going to see a real situation, listening personally and with our hearts, meeting physically – without intermediaries – and reporting on it to the media: ‘Nothing replaces seeing things at first hand’ (Francis 2021) is the main theme of the last two messages. ‘WE’ as a church community also appears more often (‘Listening to one another in the Church’) (Francis 2022a).

The evolution of the concept of ‘WE’ from a connection in a virtual network to a return to the personal ‘WE’ of a defined community is also closely related to the positive or negative relationship to social networks that occurs in the messages. As Michele Martini’s (2022) study suggests, Benedict XVI spoke both positively and neutrally about digital media, in Francis’ case, we encounter progressively more negative attitudes (Martini 2022). Likewise, the ‘WE’ group that was born in the texts with the advent of social media and grew in the sense of ‘WE’ all, is gradually being reduced back to a group of ‘WE’ who belong to a particular community: We, Christian journalists; people of every generation who know the Story of Stories, etc. The virtual and broadest ‘WE’ is gradually returning to a more clearly named and defined ‘WE’, and this process directly correlates with a greater prudence in the Church’s relationship to social media. The Roman Catholic Church has used its potential and multiplied its activity in the media, the Vatican has in recent years become more involved in media communication beyond texts specifically dedicated to the subject, and the issue of social media is proving ambiguous, risky, and potentially dangerous. From calls that ‘WE’ not be afraid to enter virtual space and that ‘WE’ spread the Gospel through networks, the texts have shifted to personal and physical encounters – ‘WE’ outside the media. The word ‘media’ has faded from the centre of what matters. ‘Listening’ and ‘WE’ remain at the centre. (Figure 6) The process of anchoring the pronoun ‘WE’ as the closest link in the community is thematically related to the Pope’s desire for a synodal process, for leading the ecclesial community in a synodal way.

As you look back at the five types of we, only the you-and-I we is truly personal and helps to cement or acknowledge a bond between the speaker and listener. The other four forms of we erect a barrier between the participants in the conversation. It is not surprising that as people move up the social hierarchy, they use the more distancing forms of we more often. (Pennebaker 2011)

If we look at the possibility that the need and development of community promoted by the use of the pronoun ‘WE’ may indicate a crisis process that occurred in the Church with the change in the communication system as well as other issues that may have initiated crisis processes after 2008, we must also look at how Pope Francis speaks of crisis. If we look at how Francis works with the word ‘crisis’, we find that it does not appear to a greater extent in his messages until much later, after the change of discourse in the messages. In any case, it is almost always accompanied by the pronoun ‘WE’ or ‘OUR’. He uses crisis communication without talking about the crisis. This was also the case in the letter to the German bishops before the start of the synodal process, where implicitly the text responds to the crisis situation in the attitude of the German Catholic Church, but the word crisis does not appear even once in the nine pages of the letter. Instead, we encounter an emphasis on community belonging:

We know that we live not only in an era of change but in a change of era, stirring new and old questions which it is right and necessary to address. (Francis 2019b)

Interestingly, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, we encounter the term ‘crisis’ more frequently, both in contexts related to pandemics and ecology, and in relation to religion, church, and faith. Again, there is an emphasis on community and belonging:

The crisis can become an opportunity for evangelization, for preaching anew the meaning of our humanity, our life, and this world in which we live. (Francis 2022b)

We do not come out from a crisis on our own: we need to take risks and take each other’s hand. (Llorente 2022)

Let us remember that the church always has difficulties, always is in crisis, because she’s alive. Living things go through crises. Only the dead don’t have crises. (Esteves 2021)

Around 2020, Pope Francis seems to have embarked openly on a communication of crisis. But that is a subject for further research. In any case, we offer here the possibility that the first sign of crisis communication of the papal See is encrypted in the hidden life of pronouns, to paraphrase the title of Professor Pennebaker’s book.

4. Conclusions

We have shown that the wording used at the turn of the millennium, which is addressed to leaders and church authorities and appeals to them to communicate messages to their communities in the sense of ‘tell them to do something’ is changing more and more to the pronoun ‘WE’ with the advent of Web 2.0. At the same time, we find that the decline in the frequency of the use of the verbs ‘MUST’ and ‘SHOULD’ comes with the rise of Pope Francis. With Benedict XVI, we observe a blending of the use of these imperatives with the rise of the pronoun ‘WE’.

Since 2008, we have observed a change in the use of pronouns by the highest authorities of the Catholic Church. And in the same year, for example, the Facebook platform came to prominence. Social networks have been growing steadily since that year, with the decentralization of media being the hallmark of Web 2.0.

There may, of course, be several reasons why the system of addressing in messages is changing:

• 1. The Pope’s media advisor (ghostwriter) is changing.

  We were not able to find out how the Pope’s advisors from his entourage influence or prepare texts and how that has changed over the years. Nevertheless, we believe that this will not be the main influence on the change in the factors we have observed. Among the the main arguments is the fact that the influences and features of the text have been gradually interwoven in a certain continuity of the pontificates of the various popes. We do not find a clear dividing line between the end of the use of the imperative and the change in the use of pronouns. Furthermore, the language in the messages for World Communications Day is closely related to the goals of the individual popes and their direction.

• 2. The message delivery system is changing.

  Technological advances have undoubtedly had an impact on the way the messages of the popes are communicated. As long as the messages were disseminated only in print, there was little likelihood of their reaching a wide audience, and so they were logically addressed to church leaders, i.e., to persons holding an ecclesiastical office associated with a measure of authority. Yet even this point does not correspond to the change in access to addressees over time. A broad community of addressees could have accessed the Internet message much earlier than with the advent of Web 2.0 and the advent of social networking in 2008.

• 3. The use of pronouns mirrors Web 2.0 communication.

  It is very likely that with the advent of social networks, where one of the main features is the decentralization of communication, the communication of the popes is changing. We are going through three media patterns: from communication ‘from the centre from one to all members’ to ‘one-to-one’ communication, and finally to ‘all-to-all’ communication. (Strickland 2007). Since 2008, when all-to-all communication on social media has started to be applied on a large scale, there is a clear turn in the texts of papal messages. It is the process of the so-called ‘democratization of the media’ which requires a change in communication towards using the pronoun ‘WE’ and is, therefore, the easiest explanation of the shift in papal communication.

• 4. A change in communication can accompany a crisis period.

  From several of the studies mentioned above, we found that a large increase in the pronoun ‘WE’ was observed in the spontaneous expressions of communities immediately responding to a crisis and may also reflect the crisis communication strategy of the Holy See. This could indicate a desire to strengthen the community and overcome the crisis. The crisis management of communication of the Holy See since 2008, when the phenomenon of using pronouns was documented, may have already involved multiple themes that escalated simultaneously in the years when social networks were on the rise. For example, there is the topic of victims of sexual abuse, which took centre stage in the European media (Pew Research Center 2010) at the turn of the first and second decades, but also the loss of the security of institutional religion with the rise of virtual communities and social connections (Tsuria 2021). Pronouns in the texts are certainly undergoing a major transformation that is not dependent on the staffing of the communication dicastery, and it appears that these subtle words can predict crisis communication long before it is explicitly discussed and written about.

The aim of this article is to analyse the message of the bishops of Rome in relation to the changes in religious behaviour in online and offline spaces. The results presented above should be interpreted in the context of the continuity and discontinuity of the pontificate of each pope. Pope Francis’ emphasis on community formation in the changing conditions of the contemporary (digital) world is closely linked to the current synodal process in the Church, which Pope Francis has made one of the key words of his pontificate. Pope Francis expressed this at the opening of the Synodal Process at the beginning of his address:

A synodal Church is a Church which listens, which realizes that listening “is more than simply hearing.” It is a mutual listening in which everyone has something to learn. The faithful people, the college of bishops, the Bishop of Rome: all listening to each other, and all listening to the Holy Spirit, the “Spirit of truth” (Jn 14:17), in order to know what he “says to the Churches” (Rev 2:7). In conclusion, he added that “Our gaze also extends to humanity as a whole.” (Francis 2015)

The emphasis on a new way of communication within the Church and outside the Church within the synodal process is anticipated by the continuity of the transformation of the communication of the bishops of Rome described above. Thus, it appears that non-theological scientific disciplines that analyse the activities of the Church can point to important implicit and as yet unnamed pastoral and theological trends within the Church. Listening to the world and reading the signs of the times, among which we can include the phenomenon of digital religion, proves to be of utmost importance for a timely and arguably deeper understanding of Pope Francis’ current response to the communication crisis within the Church.

However, the key question for further research remains whether the loss of the imperative and the transformation of the use of pronouns in addressing the community is a strategic decision based on theological or theological-pastoral reflection. The Church is a divine-human reality and the culture of the people of a given time is always an integral part of its life. There is, therefore, the possibility that in this case it may be a manifestation of the contemporary new culture permeating the church, bringing with it a change in communication style.

Based on this short research study, we are unable to clearly identify where the main impulses leading to this change are located. They will be part of further research. If it is a strategic decision, it is also possible that this decision can be altered and the process of losing the imperative and changing the identification of authority and community is reversible. If this is a cultural shift caused by modern technologies, then it is very likely that this communication style will become increasingly dominant within the Church.

However, it is entirely certain that the change in communication inside and outside the Church brings with it a change in the process of ethical decision-making. The radical transformation of the relationship of religious authority to the community and the transformation of communication within the community will also transform the ethical decision-making processes. This issue will also be the subject of further research.

Disclosure statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Funding

Research for this paper was funded by a grant from Palacký University [grant number IGA CMTF].

Notes on contributors

Veronika Müllerová

Veronika Müllerová. Researcher, academic background in film and television theory and production. For several years she worked for Czech Television. She researches how digital space affects traditional Christian communities and authorities. She teaches in the Department of Communication at Palacký University, Czech Republic.

Jaroslav Franc

Jaroslav Franc. Religionist and theologian, assistant professor, senior researcher at the Institute of Intercultural, Interreligious and Ecumenical Research and Dialogue, head of the Department of Communication, and chairman of the academic senate of the faculty at the Cyril and Methodius Faculty of Theology at Palacký University in Olomouc. He is also the head of the department and the guarantor of the Bachelor’s degree programme Ethics and Culture in Media Communication.

Notes

1 When choosing the language for the textual analysis, we assumed that English is currently the most widely read and universal language.