Slashdot Mirror
Pope Rails Against the Internet and Transparency
tcd004 writes "At a conference on digital media at the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI attacked the idea of transparency in the Internet age, warning that digital transparency exacerbates tensions between nations and within nations themselves and increases the 'dangers of ... intellectual and moral relativism,' which can lead to 'multiple forms of degradation and humiliation' of the essence of a person, and to the 'pollution of the spirit.' All in all, it seemed a pretty grim view of the wide-open communication environment being demanded by the Internet age."
Openly transparent communication undermines power structures that rely on the opposite
That 140 character limit drives him up the wall.
Well, in all fairness, the article did leave out the Pope mentioning how the Internet will sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids...
Similar to the upcoming US election results
The problem isn't the pedo priests, it's the peoples ability to find out about them!
Seems to me he's saying it's a problem for Governments and Institutions, transparency is always good for the people. Oh yea, maybe transparency can be a problem for the Church as we learn more and more about what went on there....
I never got what the big deal was with The Pope anyways. He's just as human as you or I, so his interpretations can be just as flawed as yours or mine, yet elected by his own circle of peers, instead of by the masses that follow his orders.
I'll give him due respect as a fellow human being, one whose wisdom probably far exceeds my own in a great many things. However, I have a feeling I know a bit more on the subject of Internet Transparency than him, so I'll politely decline his advice.
The words of the Bishop of Rome about the internet, freedom, and transparency, ring very familiar.
It was this very flavor of rhetoric that came from British citizens, Muslim Jihadis, who decry that freedom is the basic sin of mankind. They yearn for Sharia law to rule their lives.
Of course, I have no problem should they choose to live their lives under Sharia law. My problem comes about when they decide that I should live my life by Sharia law, whether I want to or not. It is, they explain, good for me.
So when el Papa decided that internet freedom is not for me, my immediate reaction was, "I've heard all this before."
It never fails to astound me when Men of God not only want to live their own lives by their code of conduct, but they want me to live that way, also.
When God shows up in a burning bush, and then explains how I should live, I may decide to give it some credibility. Until then, I'll go on striving for freedom of choice for myself, and for others. They can, if they choose, live by Biblical law.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
The change is coming. Transparency can lead to "degradation and humiliation", but so can secretiveness. If you want to remain relevant, then learn to deal with it instead of trying to suppress it.
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." - Pravin Lal of Alpha Centauri (1999)
Surprise surprise. It's hard to lie when everyone can see right through you.
Perhaps more to the point, cover-ups are much harder to perpetrate when a single leak can plaster all your dirty laundry all over the net.
Gee, I can't imagine why the pope would object to that... Nope, can't think of a single reason *sigh*
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Your argument is presenting a false dichotomy, instead of handling the actual claim. I would like to point out that there are some things that are forbidden in any country in the western world (snuff films, for example), yet you won't say that anyone who claims these are dangerous (even after creating them, that is) supports "holding everything locked down tight", I hope.
In fact, all he said was that the "huge widening of the frontiers of communication" has benefits (for example - points to a more "egalitarian and pluralistic" forum) and drawbacks (for example - increases the "dangers of ... intellectual and moral relativism,"). I guess however, expecting anyone on slashdot (commentators and modders) to RTFA is a bit to much.
TFA, by the way, does not give the speech (or a translation of it) but just tiny parts of it, without any context. So even after reading it, I have no idea what he said. What I do know is that he is not an idiot, there is quite some evidence for this, and so he knows he has no chance of gaining actual direct power (becoming any sort of a tyrant).
The reporter of that article obviously had an agenda. In lieu of finding a more unbiased source, I thought it might be worthwhile to at least include a report of the same talk from the opposite side of the camp: here
It would seem from this article that the Pope is looking for us to act with a conscience while on the internet, so that the internet as a whole can be an edifying experience. That is, how we use the internet is important. Raw power must be used to good ends.
Note that I do recognize and appreciate the difficulties with defining "good", "edifying", and even the institution which provides these definitions.
Disclaimer: I'm not Catholic (I'm Orthodox -- we're not in the habit of defending the Pope). I'm just trying to provide a little balance.
Plus the whole "moral relativism" thing. Once people accept that morals are relative, the idea that there is a god who dictates morality disintegrates, along with some of the Popes power/influence.
"But then, the silence was broken. Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, took his turn at the microphone. "The situation in which we are living is extremely exacting, and we are asked to be absolutely truthful and credible," he said. The last couple of months have been very difficult, he went on, with so many questions being raised about things that happened long ago. But he said, "This is the time for truth, transparency and credibility. Secrecy and discretion are not values that are in fashion at the moment. We must be in a condition of having nothing to hide." The crowd applauded."
See, the pope would probably drag the whole "moral relativism" angle into the debate anyway, as that's something of a fixation for Catholic dogma, for more or less the reasons you state. So I wasn't surprised to see that brought up. It's also something of a red herring.
It's transparently obvious that real issue here is the abuse scandals. You'll note that they did in fact keep a lid on the whole thing for decades - many current alleged cases of priesthood pedophilia date from the 80's and 90's, and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the actual problems stretch back further than the memories of anyone alive today. This is not a new problem.
But back in the old days, shuffling the offending priests off to different diocese, and quietly denying that any wrongdoing took place was enough to keep the matter buried. They relied on the victims and their families shame, and on the rare cases where that wasn't enough, the fact that gossip rarely spread any further than the affected community. Does that last part sound like it would work today? Small wonder the pope is worried.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Most likely no one will listen to me, but I may as well try and reach a few people.
The Pope is speaking specifically about the effect that the internet will have on individuals, as this is his primary function as the Pope. I don't think this message should be taken as some condemnation of internet transparency. It seems to me that he's primary speaking about the dangers that arise (with respect to the soul) in any "wild west" situation like the internet.
Oh, and since TFA seems primarily concerned with the child abuse scandal (obviously this is a despicable thing that has happened), it might also be worth mentioning that the Pope is the bishop of Rome, and his primacy is in matters of faith. He is *not* the CEO of the Church like you might find in an ordinary industry. If we want to find resolutions to the abuse scandal, we have to bring the local bishops to account. If somehow the Pope is removed, it will not get rid of the problem. All it will do is make a few Atheists happy.
While they aren't stupid, per se(it's not as though they don't have loads of well degreed Jesuits who definitely aren't, if it comes to that), and some of their people definitely have the low, animal cunning that makes a good politician; but, deep down, I think what causes them to keep making these unbelievably tone-deaf moves is ingrained arrogance.
It's hard to respond correctly when you just can't quite bring yourself to believe that great unwashed might, at some point, apply the rules to you. Even harder when you also posses the nigh-unshakable conviction that you are, in fact, the "good guys"(and where goodness is concerned, empiricism seems to run in reverse. Very few "good people" have ever said "Wait. I do bad things, I must not be a good person." Many "good people" have said "Wait. I'm a good person. The things that I do cannot be bad things.").
And that is how you get things like A senior priest saying(in public) that the condemnation being suffered by the Catholic Church was like the persecution of the jews.
First off, I get the joke. Technically he was in the Luftwaffe as part of an AA crew, members of the Luftwaffe, Wermacht and Kreigsmarine were absolved of involvement with the Nazi government (with exceptions for those who personally committed war crimes) by the allies as most of them were ordinary Germans unlike the Waffen SS (one had to be a Nazi in order to join the SS). Being a member of the Hitler Youth was something that was kind of mandatory after 1939.
I dislike the Church but I insist on being accurate. If anything, people should bash him for being a deserter but then again that would not have been uncommon at the time. I'm sure there is a Hitler parody for this out there though.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
If the Vatican had a PR department [...]
If?
All it will do is make a few Atheists happy.
Why would an atheist, in particular, care who the Pope is? Is there some pro-atheist papal candidate who might have a shot at the papacy if the current Pope is ousted? It seems an odd statement.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Priests are human and did fail"
And the Church aided, abetted, and concealed that failure, systematically, for decades (if not generations).
This is far bigger than a few flawed humans. This is about a system that has perverted itself.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
The problem isn't that priests are human and did fail.
The problem is that the hierarchy worked hard to cover for them.
If it had stopped at the priests in question then the church as a whole would be squeeky clean but it did not.
It is the organizations actions, not the actions of the individuals, which show it as rotten to the core.
There are plenty of good people in the church but far far too many of them did nothing and we all know what happens then.
It's not the abuses anyone is complaining about, it's the cover ups. Sure, every profession is going to have people who piss on the ethical standards of that profession, and there's no reason a religious profession would somehow dodge that.
The thing is, if a doctor violates the Hippocratic oath, he loses his medical license. A corrupt lawyer gets disbarred. A fraudulent scientist gets publicly shamed and unable to get money for future research. Jobs with less on the line usually just result in the offender being fired. Whatever the job is though, when someone is corrupt, they're generally removed, and when that fails to happen, the company they work for is punished instead.
With the catholic church, they covered up the pedophilia for decades, and now that they can't hide it any more, do they at least finally apologize, vow to fix it, and start making good on that promise by immediately kicking the most obvious offenders out of the clergy and turning them over the cops? Nope, they instead whine that that transparency of the internet is bad, because it makes their wrongdoing public. That isn't bad PR, that's a systemic failure of the morals they claim to uphold.
THIS is why so few still have any respect for them. Failing to discover abuse is one thing, but being fully aware of it and actively hiding it is when they very much cross the line between "good profession with the occasional douchebag" to "group that actively promotes evil behavior."
Similarly, you can look at the police in the US. Does anyone complain that there's a few evil, unethical cops? Of course not - sometimes you really can't weed them out until they majorly screw up... except they don't. They're "doing administrative work until an investigation can be thoroughly completed." Translation: We're keeping him off the street until the media focuses on something else, then pretending this never happened. Unsurprisingly, public opinion of the police is quite low - doesn't matter that the majority of cops are indeed good people, the system they work for actively promotes evil by refusing to punish the corrupt members of their organization.
Has anyone thought of a RICO charge against the church? I mean they organized to conceal their criminal acts.
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
Most of the discussion on this thread is way off base. Here [zenit.org] is the text of the speech that the Pope actually gave. It wasn't exactly a major address. He gave the closing speech at a conference entitled "Digital Witnesses: Faces and Languages in the Cross-Media Age," sponsored by the Italian bishops. So, he is giving a polite little address to a conference with a particular theme.
<summary>
It's actually pretty boiler-plate non-controversial stuff (at least coming from a Catholic prelate). Media outlets are rapidly expanding. The Internet has an "open vocation, with an egalitarian and pluralistic tendency." But, due to the "digital divide," which creates new categories of inclusion and exclusion and new sources of division, not all can participate. Moreover, disembodied and impersonal communication presents a new outlet for dehumanization in the culture. Often, one can observe on the Internet a dynamic "that can make us lose the perception of the depth of persons and remain at the surface: When that happens, they are bodies without souls, objects of trade and consumption."
What is needed in such a situation? The Pope suggests (in a nod to the theme of the conference) "a return to faces." New media, when used rightly, can actually become a humanizing force in the culture. In order to do this, people involved in media work need to proceed from a more profound vision. Media workers should see their profession as something more than communicating information. They should see it as communicating humane values based on thoughtful reflection on the nature of the human person and the common good. This means that they should "focus on promoting the dignity of persons and peoples, they need to be clearly inspired by charity and placed at the service of truth, of the good, and of natural and supernatural fraternity."
If media workers do this, then far from being a dehumanizing venture, the "epochal journey" that we have begun will be "rich and fertile with new opportunities." "Without fear we want to set out upon the digital sea embracing the unrestricted navigation with the same passion that for 2,000 years has steered the barque of the Church. More than with technical resources, although necessary, we want to qualify ourselves dwelling in this universe too with a believing heart, that contributes to giving a soul to the uninterrupted communicational flow of the Internet."
This should especially be the task of Christians. "The task of every believer who works in the media is that of 'opening the door to new forms of encounter, maintaining the quality of human interaction, and showing concern for individuals and their genuine spiritual needs. They can thus help the men and women of our digital age to sense the Lord's presence.'"
</summary>
There have been a lot of particularly clueless reporters covering the Church over the last month, and this one is no exception. She breathlessly reports that the Pope did not talk about clerical sex abuse at a conference on the role of Christians on the Internet. Why is that surprising? Note also that the Pope's speech did not mention anything about transparency one way or the other. For the very simple reason that it wasn't a speech on that topic! What is so difficult about this to understand? The mention of "transparency" came up when the Vatican press secretary made some off-the-cuff remarks about how we need more of it, not less! Which brings me to the summary by tcd004. He misread the headline. (Did he read the article?) The Pope didn't talk about transparency. The press secretary did, and he didn't attack it--he called for more of it.
All it will do is make a few Atheists happy.
There's an old aphorism from Sun Tzu Wu: "When you see your enemy making serious mistakes, do not interfere!"
As an atheist I couldn't possibly be happier with the Catholic Church and the deranged B-movie villain they elected Pope.
Er, what? Of course it is. It's a religion. It's entirely based on superstition and imaginary playmates. There's nothing at the core by definition. It's the purest form of PR.
Historical atrocities like the inquisition and such is one example of morals going from absolute to relative in which a religion was involved
Uh, no, the inquisition is an example of church morals operating on status quo. It didn't happen in isolation. You may also have heard of witch-hunts. Crusades. Priests in that era were essentially just another form of aristocracy - one that held more power than the actual rulers of some nations. If you think that the atrocities which they carried out were an example of "relative morals", then you haven't read your bible, and you certainly haven't studied the history of christianity.
As for whether moral relativism is a good idea or not, it's irrelevant. Moral relativism is a reality. All morals are formed by the individual - they just tend to be influenced by the society in which the person was raised. The fact that morals are relative doesn't mean that we have to tolerate them all equally, though. I think rape is wrong - if your moral code allows rape (as many religions did, and some still do), I really don't give a damn, I'm going to do whatever I can to stop you from acting on those morals. Relativity and equality are not the same thing.
That's not the alternative. The alternative is 1) kicking them out of the church so they won't have a position of authority, presumed goodness, and unsupervised access to young children, and 2) not allowing them to be shipped off to South America when one of the victims DOES want their day in court. The idea that you'd have to force public attention on victims who do not want it is a total strawman.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie