As David Aaronovitch remarked in the Times:
If polo is the most expensive sport in which to participate, then archbishop-baiting must be the cheapest. You don’t even need your own archbishop, but can share one with millions of others. No saddle is required, only a pen. The man in the biretta simply has to offer an opinion on some matter of contemporary fashion, and we can all pile in. Cheap, but fun.
Of course, Catholic Archbishop Vincent Nichols is entitled to his views that young people participating in social networks can cause harm.
“There’s a worry”, said His Grace, “that an excessive use or an almost exclusive use of text and e-mails means … we’re losing some of the ability to build interpersonal communication that’s necessary for living together and building a community.” And when this Facebook stuff goes wrong, because of “transient friendships”, he added, then sometimes the result can be suicide.
And, of course, there may be a tiny gem of truth in his concerns, and they may be true for the odd individual. However, when someone in his position makes such blanket pronouncements, obviously unaware of the reality of social networking life, he risks sounding ridiculous and deserves to be challenged. I have at least three problems with his pronouncements.
First, his views are clearly at odds with many Roman Catholics, including, apparently, his superiors in Rome. Reporter Yumi Wilson, points out that despite what this archbishop is saying, the Catholic Church has actually been embracing social media, using text messages and creating its own social network. In May 2008, Reuters reported that Pope Benedict would “text daily messages of inspiration and hope” during a six-day event in Sydney. In June of the same year, Cardinal George Pell announced the launching of a global Catholic social networking website modeled after Facebook and MySpace.
Pell said that there was a need for the church to have a serious web presence. “Whatever about my ignorance on this area (the internet), it’s more than balanced by my recognition of its importance, and my determination that representatives of the church be actively presented in this area.” The Vatican has its own YouTube Channel. Apparently, the Catholic Church, itself, doesn’t quite agree with the views of Archbishop Nichols.
Secondly, his pronouncements sound very similar to those made by plenty of old luddites who have never bothered to actually use the technology. It used to be the Waltz that was destroying society: now it is Facebook. In 1816 the Times reported:
The indecent foreign dance called the Waltz was introduced … at the English Court on Friday last … It is quite sufficient to cast one’s eyes on the voluptuous intertwining of the limbs, and close compressure of the bodies … to see that it is far indeed removed from the modest reserve which has hitherto been considered distinctive of English females. So long as this obscene display was confined to prostitutes and adulteresses, we did not think it deserving of notice; but now that it is … forced on the respectable classes of society by the evil example of their superiors, we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion.
And Archbishop Nichols’ complaints don’t sound all that different from complaints heard throughout time by an older generation against what’s popular at the time. At various times, people have complained about the nefarious influence of rock ‘n roll, comic books, movies, the telephone, novels, plays, the waltz and chess. His comments remind us of the gap that exists between ageing male, unmarried clergy, and the reality of modern life.
Thirdly, it seems bizarre that the man cannot see the irony of him complaining about people in the real world using the internet to interact with other people, while he spends his life trying to communicate with an invisible friend who apparently never talks back with any clarity. Compared to his communication with his invisible friend, communication on Facebook is crystal clear.
As for the relative danger of the two - the small number of genuinely disturbed people who may be harmed by social networking pales into insignificance compared to the danger of the Catholic Church. Not withstanding the good deeds that many selfless Catholics have performed throughout history, there is:
- The psychological danger of encouraging people to talk to invisible friends as a crutch rather than face reality and deal with life.
- The intellectual danger of trying to hold back cognitive evolution. For years the learning in the West was held back by a frightened church unwilling to let go of its hold on ‘truth’.
- The historical physical danger. Ask anyone who refused to recant or convert under pressure. Millions have been killed.
- The sexual danger. Even today the Church in Ireland is still trying to cover up the names of some abusers.
The internet and social networking are here to stay and are integrated into the lives of many people. Yet again, the church needs to do a catching-up job.
I heard about the Archbishop’s remarks, smiled briefly and passed on to other things. It is possible to take pronouncements of this sort more seriously than they warrant.
The only people who will take the Archbish seriously are people of his own persuasion. The rest of the world will carry on regardless. Even Catholic youngsters are hardly likely to be turned away from Facebook and other online social networks by such maunderings.
A better approach than criticism or mockery might be to attempt to engage the good Archbish in a wider debate about youth, its needs and its problems. It is surely better to share our concerns where we can than to isolate and alienate everyone who doesn’t think exactly as we do.
After all, if we dismiss out of hand what the Archbish says, why should he (and all believers) not dismiss out of hand anything that we say? That is to build a new Tower of Babel.
… it seems bizarre that the man cannot see the irony of him complaining about people in the real world using the internet to interact with other people, while he spends his life trying to communicate with an invisible friend who apparently never talks back with any clarity.
I get the point, but I don’t think he would.