Facebook privacy scandal a wake-up call for Catholics, experts say

Avatar

As Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before the senate with regards to the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal April 10 and 11, many Catholics wondered how this moral issue affected them and whether the Church could provide any insight.

Although the Church has not directly weighed-in about privacy and confidentiality in the contemporary sense, experts believe this to be a special opportunity for Catholics to reflect on the way they utilize this means of communication, encouraging them to remain truthful and not live a double life, while remaining cautious about the information they share.

“Not much has been said by the Church about privacy in this sense. Most of the discussion on the World Communications Day on social media has been about truthfulness,” said Dr. Jana Bennett, moral theologian at the University of Dayton and co-editor of the blog catholicmoraltheology.com.

However, truthfulness has a strong connection to privacy, she explained: “The idea that we need to have a private space or a private understanding of ourselves is connected to who we are as human beings, to our own individuality, to our identity,” she said, “[The fear] that our identity is taken can affect the ability to be truthful online.”

Sacrificing truthfulness, however, is not an option for a Catholic.

“[The Facebook scandal] teaches us to be more cautious than we have in the past, especially in the way of being truthful, since we worship Jesus, who is the way, truth and life,” Bennett continued. “We should be very concerned about how we practice that truthfulness in our own life, especially in our social media account.”

Brantly Millegan, founder and editor-in-chief of ChurchPOP, highlighted the importance of knowing the implications of sharing personal information online and of taking personal responsibility for it.

“In this era, in in which we have major companies [controlling great amounts of online information], it’s possible for them to get hacked or leak out information,” he said. “As a society and as Catholics, we have to think about what we want to share.”

“Facebook has a moral obligation for the common good,” he continued. “[Yet], when people give their information, they do it voluntarily – it’s a risk they take. Maybe you’re OK with that risk but don’t be surprised if that risk doesn’t always turn out the way you want.”

How online privacy affects Catholics

Many issues arose when the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, reportedly used the private information of millions of Facebook users to implement targeted advertisement during the 2016 presidential election campaigns, one of them being the power of the Facebook corporation to decide the flow and access of online content, a topic that clearly touches the Catholic world.

“Facebook is both a blessing and a curse because it’s by far the biggest and most important means of getting content out to people,” Millegan said. “The problem is that we’re highly dependent on this company. People talk about Facebook becoming too dominant.”

“A concern that Catholics have is whether Facebook will censor our viewpoint or injure our publications,” he said. “Zuckerberg said he doesn’t want to censor legitimate conversations, but he does have that power.”

[The Facebook scandal] teaches us to be more cautious than we have in the past, especially in the way of being truthful, since we worship Jesus, who is the way, truth and life.”

Other moral concerns that the privacy issue rises among Catholics is the responsibility toward their neighbor and the sharing of other’s information without their consent.

“I think Catholics need to take care to protect the privacy of people who don’t have control over social media, which goes back to our care and concern for the poor and vulnerable,” Bennett said. “This would include parents, who should be thoughtful when posting about their children, and churches, when posting photos of people online. I think people should be more truthful that everybody who’s been photographed has had a chance to give consent.”

Another example of this moral obligation is when people travel around the world and take photos of others’ state of life with the hope of helping, but without their consent.

“[Many times] people present themselves as being helpers for the poor people,” Bennett said. “But it can send the wrong message about the Church’s understanding of solidarity with the poor and also limits those people’s privacy.”

Catholic action

While many questions continue to arise regarding the use of social media and its implications, Millegan considers the modern idea of privacy “a huge open area for Catholic thought,” which would benefit from a “theology of privacy.”

Similarly, Bennett believes the Church needs to be “bigger and bolder” about this issue: “I think we have a mandate from the Second Vatican Council to be thinking about our communication and this includes thinking about the issue of privacy in a more comprehensive way,” she said.

Among the many pros and cons that the use of social media platforms brings to society, Bennett holds that one of the most important things for Catholics to keep in mind is the way it affects their life as a whole.

“Catholics need to be thinking about the way that they live online and how they live offline. A lot of times many people tend to see a separation between these two, and I don’t think that dichotomy exists,” she said. “We don’t always make a very good connection between how we interact with people online and what it means to be a Christian.

“We need to be more deliberate about ‘what virtues I need to practice today,’ regardless of where I am, and that includes my online activities.”

Featured image by Alex Wong | Getty Images

COMING UP: The priesthood is more than just a job

Sign up for a digital subscription to Denver Catholic!

In October, the Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazonian Region will be held at the Vatican. On the agenda: a discussion on the possibility of ordaining married men to the priesthood in that region, due to a particularly dire lack of vocations. The news has reawakened discussion on priestly celibacy in general, and whether the time has come to relax the requirement on a wider level. And so, I figured it was time to revisit the subject here, as well.

To set the tone, I’d like to begin my discussion with a very short quiz:

Q: Why does the Roman Catholic Church require lifelong celibacy for ordained priests?

  1. Because sex is bad, dirty and evil, and our priests should not defile themselves;
  2. Because we don’t want to have to support priests’ families out of collection funds;
  3. None of the above; or
  4. Both of the above.

The correct answer would be C, none of the above.

So why, then? Why on earth would these men have to give up the possibility of marriage and children, just because they want to serve God as priests?

Priestly celibacy is a discipline of the Church, not a doctrine. It could change. The rule has already been relaxed in relation to married Episcopalian priests who convert to Catholicism. In this era of widespread priest shortages, and even wider-spread scandals, should we consider expanding that exemption, and remove the requirement of priestly celibacy entirely? Wouldn’t a married priesthood encourage more men, and perhaps healthier men, to respond to the call of God?

Perhaps. But at what cost?

Discussions about the elimination of priestly celibacy are not new. They’ve been around as long as priestly celibacy itself. One of the periods of particularly spirited discussion on the subject was in the late 1960’s. In response, Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical entitled Sacerdotalis Caelibatus. In it, he explained the reasons for the Church’s long history of priestly celibacy, and he enumerated three “significances,” or reasons, for the tradition:

Christological: The priesthood isn’t just a job. It is a state of being. It encompasses his entire existence. It places a mark on his soul — a mark that will follow him into eternity. The priest is ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by another bishop, in an unbroken chain that goes clear back to the apostles. And through that sacramental ordination, and the power and grace it conveys, the priest stands in persona Christi —  in the person of Christ. He has the power to consecrate the Eucharist — to turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. He can forgive sins.  And so, standing in the person of Christ, the priest seeks to be like him in all things. He imitates Christ’s life, which includes Christ’s celibacy.

But, you say, Christ also had a beard. Does the priest have to imitate that, too? How far do we have to take this whole imitation thing? Well, the question we must ask is: What was integral to Christ’s ministry? Was celibacy integral? What would it look like if Christ had married and had children? He would have had to work to support them. He would have had to provide them a home.  No iterate preaching, moving from town to town. Jesus was not going to be an absentee husband and father. It was the freedom of celibacy that allowed him to give himself totally to the service of the Father and the Father’s children. So yes, I’d say it was integral. The beard, not so much.

Ecclesiological:  This basically means it is about the Church. Our understanding of a priest is not that he’s a single guy, a bachelor. He, like Christ, is in fact “married” to the Church. You’ve heard all that talk about how the Church is the “bride of Christ.” We really believe that. And the priest, standing in persona Christi, likewise becomes the Bridegroom, giving his life for the Church, and especially for the part of the Church he serves. He doesn’t just offer his “workday” to us, the flock.  He offers his life. He serves us as a husband serves his wife. (And we the faithful, as good “wives”, should likewise be going out of our way to love and care for our priests.)  His attention and affections are not divided between his bride, the Church, and an earthly bride and family. He has far greater freedom than a married man — freedom to not only serve his flock, but to pray and meditate and to grow closer to the Christ whom he represents on this earth. Which then prepares him for further service to the flock.

Eschatological: This means it’s about the next life. Remember my last column, about the Poor Clare Sisters who make the radical choice to live this life as if were already eternal life, focusing only on Christ? Well, priests participate in that too. Scripture says that, in Heaven, we will neither marry nor be given in marriage. (Mt 22:30) Priests and consecrated religious foreshadow that here, reminding us that everything that happens in this life is just a prelude to the life to come.

And so, for all of these reasons, I oppose the wholesale elimination of the requirement of priestly celibacy. I realize that we already have exceptions. I know several of those “exceptions,” and I think they are wonderful people and wonderful priests. But I think they would acknowledge the difference between the exception and the rule, and that the loss of priestly celibacy would change our understanding of the character and charism of the priesthood. The priesthood would be increasingly perceived as just another career choice — one to be entered and left at will.

And whatever the priesthood may be, it is definitely not just another job.

Featured image by Josh Applegate on Unsplash