Connect: It's already clear the Catholic Church and the media are using each other like never before. Since television, in particular, became ubiquitous, the church has resented media, writes Eddie Holt.
Because what the church calls "sin" - especially sex - sells, television has sought to make money by seducing viewers to watch sensual, suggestive and sleazy programmes and ads.
Within a decade of the end of second World War television began to undermine church power with greater gusto than even Karl Marx, Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud had done in the 19th century. Television, after all, could reach masses of people that vested interests had hitherto managed to keep ignorant. It democratised dissent. Problem was, it too was a vested interest.
Mind you, communications technology had earlier caused a major problem for The Vatican. The 16th century Reformation took off largely because of printing. It too democratised dissent. Up till then Rome had been able to quell all "heresies" before they inflicted serious damage. However, printing made Martin Luther's edicts available in all major German population centres within 15 days.
So Protestantism was born. Rome weakened (especially in northern Europe) and states became stronger. Priestly power gradually gave way to lawyerly power - church enforcers to state ones - and capitalism thrived.
Remember that figures in the Irish Catholic hierarchy cited Canon Law as justification for their reluctance to, as they saw it, "succumb" to mere state law. Even on paedophilia, the empire of self-proclaimed humility would not be humiliated by any mere local sheriff.
Anyway, realising it has tradition, pomp, pageantry, colour, smoke (white, black, grey), bells, chanting, art - spectacle and sound really, and ideal for TV - The Vatican has entered a new relationship with the media.
Certainly, I have never seen such prolonged media coverage (this column included!) of Vatican events. The problem, of course, of either becoming or making yourself attractive to the media is that it's inevitably a Faustian pact. The British royals, for instance, are an example. Media will get you into public consciousness, build you up and then inevitably destroy you.
Meanwhile, Catholic Church pronouncements will continue to foreground theological and ritual aspects but The Vatican is now more engaged in public relations than ever. The irony of this is that even though Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's election as Pope Benedict XVI is a victory for doctrinal fundamentalism - a turning away from outside influences - concentration on PR externals will undermine this.
The result will be tension as the new Pope seeks internal orthodoxy while vacuous pandering to media will hollow out the church. There'll be an increasingly tense internal-external dynamic. You can see internal division already. Supporters of Pope Benedict insist he's "charming", "intellectual" and "sincere" while detractors' kinder words include "enforcer", "naysayer" and "panzer-bishop".
He's been a polarising figure, remains a polarising figure and is likely to be . . . well, we'll see. Now that he's got the top job - the description is not intended to be irreverent - he deserves a chance. However, at 78, he's unlikely to change the thinking that got him there in the first place. Miraculous transformations happen but Europe seems certain to become increasingly secular.
A problem for The Vatican is that in using media to promote itself, it's embracing a defining aspect of the modernism it condemns. Ultimately it's a matter of power. Certainly, media power is not an unmitigated good. It promises knowledge but too often produces abject propaganda and consequently ignorant people. Of course, medieval church power was not an unmitigated good either.
Luther's principal objection, for instance, had been to the practice of simony - paying money for "indulgences" in the after-life - but it was such money that financed much of the greatest art of Renaissance Europe. Now television and newspapers show the world the magnificence of the Sistine Chapel. In the process, however, it becomes that little bit more commoditised as the media markets it.
Sure, it helps to "sell" the Catholic Church but there's a cost to selling too, part of which is demystification. Pope Benedict may preside over a church which is simultaneously museum-ising itself and using the media to transform it into an exceptionally grandiose soap opera. There are two totalitarian world views using each other in this relationship.
Perhaps the saddest aspect of all is that Christianity, which began as the religion of the slave-class of ancient Rome, should have become so pompous, so opulent, so worldly. As its power grew, of course, it attracted and extracted wealth and it couldn't remain static. Now it embraces a beast - the media - which offers the prospect of renewed vitality but, as the church knows, can't be trusted.
Both seek dominance for that is their natures. Both effect changes in consciousness and even in conscience. One claims to mediate the word of God; the other to mediate the words of people. Both do good and bad. This will be a love-hate relationship based on mutual power interests - the medieval versus the modern. It would be great to know what Jesus Christ might think of it all.