Kommentar zu einem Kommentar über „Inter mirifica"

Abstract

Als einen „Mantel barmherzigen Schweigens" interpretiert Otto Karrer1 die in
der bisherigen Konzilsliteratur relativ stiefmütterliche Behandlung des Dekrets
„Inter mirifica" über die sozialen Kommunikationsmittel. Was kleinere Kommentarwerke stillschweigend übergingen, konnte jedoch in der bislang umfassendsten postkonziliaren deutschen Nachlese nicht unberücksichtigt bleiben: Im ersten Teil des dreibändigen Ergänzungswerks zum Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, „Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, Dokumente und Kommentare", wird auch das Publizistik-Dekret mit den Methoden eines „wissenschaftlichen Kommentars" - wie ihn die Einführung ins Gesamtwerk ankündigt - exegetisiert. (...)

English

In the postconeiliar literature, especially in the commentaries on Council documents, the decree „Inter Mirifica" on the instruments of Social Communications was until now somehow neglected. Still waiting for the coming Pastoral instruction, the few commentaries publishcd have therefore a special valuc. In Gcrmany this is particularly true for a „scientific" commcntary on „Inter Mirifica" in a three-volumc collection of Council documents with commcnts („Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Konstitutionen, Dekrete und Erklärungen", Freiburg 1966; Here: volurne I, page 111-135) was published in connection with the well-known „Lexikon für Theologie und Kird1e". This co::nmentary has considcrable shortcomings. So there is e. g. no indication of literature or other sources although great parts of the introduction are nearly word for word taken from a study of Otto B. Roegele on the subject (0. B. Roegele, Das Konzilsdekret „über die Werkzeuge der sozialen Kommunikation" in: „Publizistik", Bremen, 9:1964, page 305-347). The introduction
on the history of the origin and rise of the decree is one-sided, negative and
thc commentary itself eclectical. Secondary things are overestimated and important texts are only commented on in between. Often the author restricts himself on a some how rangcd repetition of the text of the decree itself. W'here he is deploring scientific shortcomings, he doesn't himself have the knowlcdge and the terminology to describe these. Even his demand to correct the translation approved by the bishops the author can't fulfill. - The very same commentary is even published in English: H. Vorgrimler (Editor), Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (4 volumes), New York and London 1967 f.