One of the final public addresses by Pope Benedict was his assessment of the Second Vatican Council before a large gathering of Roman clergy. The then Holy Father opened his mind on the terrible, indeed cancerous influence of the media upon the Church, the Council, its interpretation and application. The corruptive influence, in many cases, rather than be opposed by the clergy, was imbibed and exacerbated by the clergy. By 1968, Pope Paul was speaking of "renewal yes, rebellion no". In that Year of Faith, the Holy Father had to issue his Credo. In its doctrinal content, the Credo carried more weight than the entire Council. It was rejected out of hand by the media, ignored by most of the clergy. The bitter fruit became well known.
In some ways we are seeing a parallel of the "council of the media", with the "interview of the media" (and the usual clerical suspects). The next few weeks and months should provide more than ample time to "assimilate" the interview and to determine its efficacy.
Consider these words by Pope Benedict on the influence of the media:
here was the Council of the Fathers - the true Council - but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council in and of itself, and the world perceived the Council through them, through the media.
So the immediately efficiently Council that got thorough to the people, was that of the media, not that of the Fathers. And while the Council of the Fathers evolved within the faith, it was a Council of the faith that sought the intellectus, that sought to understand and try to understand the signs of God at that moment, that tried to meet the challenge of God in this time to find the words for today and tomorrow.
So while the whole council - as I said - moved within the faith, as fides quaerens intellectum, the Council of journalists did not, naturally, take place within the world of faith but within the categories of the media of today, that is outside of the faith, with different hermeneutics.
It was a hermeneutic of politics. The media saw the Council as a political struggle, a struggle for power between different currents within the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of whatever faction best suited their world.
As the days have gone by, it has become quite evident that poorly catechized Catholics, the "world", etc. are seeing this papal interview "through the media". Not having the precision of an encyclical, this interview is being twisted towards a "different hermeneutic"; being manipulated for a media created political power struggle: as examples, the New York Times and the Guardian distinguish themselves in promoting the politics of homosexualism, and abortion....one "current" within the Church has already revealed its hand: Jesuit blogs and journals have been active in promoting dissent and becoming de facto, he "faction best suited" for the media. Neither has television been absent: consider CNN's interview with Fr. Thomas Rosica.
Essential Reading: Pope Benedict's Address to the Roman Clergy