The Friday Pillar Post - July 31, 2026
Podcast episode titled "The Friday Pillar Post – July 31, 2026" by JD Flynn. It is a paid episode, accessible only to subscribers of The Pillar. The page includes instructions for subscribers to log in or subscribe to listen. The episode is presented as a recap of Catholic news, though specific content is not included here. A link to a related post, "God gave the growth…", appears on the page but is not part of this episode.
2 months ago
The Friday Pillar Post for July 31, 2026 is a subscriber‑only episode released by The Pillar Catholic on August 1, 2026. The content is gated behind a paywall and includes instructions for accessing the audio, signing in, and contacting the producer for assistance. 1
The episode is titled “The Friday Pillar Post – July 31, 2026” and is authored by JD Flynn. It was published on August 1, 2026 and is marked as a paid post. 1
Listeners must be logged into their Substack account on pillarcatholic.com/listen, verify the login status in the top‑right corner, and click “set up podcast” next to The Pillar TL;DR. 1
The article provides a direct link to subscribe and a prompt for existing subscribers to sign in. It emphasizes that the full episode is only available to paid subscribers. 1
For technical issues, readers are instructed to email the producer, Kate, at kolivera@pillarcatholic.com. 1*
Examine the Catholic Church’s stance on media regulation
The Catholic Church treats “media regulation” as a matter of protecting the common good and safeguarding moral and doctrinal integrity while also defending real freedom of information—not an absolute freedom, but a freedom ordered to truth, justice, and the dignity of persons. Civil authority has duties of vigilance and lawgiving “through promulgation and careful enforcement,” yet censorship is not meant as a first option. Meanwhile, the Church exercises its own regulatory authority—especially through bishops and religious superiors—over works that touch faith or morals.
Vatican II teaches that public authority must protect “true and just freedom of information” because it is necessary for contemporary society—especially regarding press freedom.
But that same passage also states that public authority must, by law and enforcement, exercise “a fitting and careful watch” so that “grave damage” does not be done to public morals and the welfare of society through the improper use of media.
So, in Catholic teaching, regulation is justified as an order to the common good: it should defend truthful communication and human flourishing, not simply restrict speech for political or ideological convenience.
Inter Mirifica highlights that media influence can be profound—sometimes people are not able to “govern its impact, or, if necessary, reject it.”
Accordingly, it insists on protections especially for young people, and it calls for vigilance without unjustly restricting freedom when precautions are lacking only on the part of professionals.
Communio et Progressio describes the role of civil authorities as essentially positive: their task is not “to create difficulties or to suppress,” though corrective measures may sometimes be necessary.
It also gives a principle for proportionality: “Censorship therefore should only be used in the very last extremity.”
This is a key Catholic qualification on “media regulation”: it does not deny the need for law; it denies that suppression is the norm.
Communio et Progressio also grounds media governance in subsidiarity: the state should not do for itself what individuals and private groups can do “just as well, or even better.”
In other words, when regulation is needed, it should often come through enabling, oversight, and protection of rights—while leaving room for responsible institutions and civil society.
Communio et Progressio explicitly argues that legislation should protect the right of citizens “to criticise the actual working of the communications media”, particularly where media operate as monopoly.
It also calls for legal safeguards against excessive economic, political, and ideological pressure that would weaken freedom of communication and the right to be informed.
Communio et Progressio teaches that authorities must maintain freedom of speech and ensure the right conditions for it, so every individual can follow informed judgment; human dignity must be respected, and the good of the country and international cooperation must be considered.
The Church’s “regulation” of media is not primarily about political speech; it is about safeguarding the deposit of faith and protecting the faithful’s right to guidance in sound doctrine.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1992) explains that, in their duty to watch over the deposit of faith and preserve it intact and to satisfy the faithful’s right to sound doctrinal guidance, bishops have the right and duty to:
This is a concrete model of content regulation: judgment, correction, and (where necessary) penalties, always within canonical limits and for the sake of protecting faith and morals.
The same 1992 instruction says the local Ordinary should carefully consider whether and under what circumstances permission might be granted for clerics or religious to write for newspapers/magazines that “attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals.”
This implies a risk-management principle: regulation can include permission structures to prevent confusion, scandal, or doctrinal harm when the media environment is hostile to Catholic teaching.
Regarding religious institutes, the 1992 instruction states that superiors have responsibilities regarding permission for publication of writings on religion or morals and the obligation to ensure ecclesiastical discipline is followed “also as regards the instruments of social communication.” If abuses emerge, superiors must insist upon applying the discipline.
It also notes that institutes—especially those dedicated to the apostolate of the press—should ensure their members follow the relevant norms of canon law.
Catholic teaching does not reduce “regulation” to policing. It repeatedly emphasizes formation and moral discernment.
Inter Mirifica teaches that those who use media have obligations: they should favor presentations outstanding for moral goodness and value-creation, avoid those that cause spiritual harm or lead others into danger, and inform themselves in time about judgments by competent authorities, following them according to conscience.
Inter Mirifica places particular moral weight on parents guarding what enters the home and may affect children.
Pope Francis, addressing TV 2000, warned that communication can be bent by “propaganda,” “ideologies,” political agenda, or “economic and technological control.”
While this is not “regulation” in the legal sense, it identifies the kind of distortions that regulation and oversight should resist—because they undermine authentic communication.
Putting the sources together, the Catholic stance can be summarized as follows:
In Catholic teaching, media regulation is legitimate when it protects the common good—not as censorship-for-control, but as guardrails for truth, moral integrity, and the rights of persons, especially the vulnerable. The Church balances this by insisting that freedom of information must be protected, that censorship should be used only at the very last extremity, and that bishops/religious superiors have a duty to supervise content touching faith and morals through judgment, permission, and discipline when necessary.