Brotherly Love?

Home

Tuesday Talking

Before Hitting ‘Enter’

Posted by Rebecca Teti in News on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 9:00 AM

A comment on Danielle’s post about the potential moral dangers of blogging jogged my memory about
Fr. Michael Orsi’s sobering reflection, Calumny in the Blogsophere.

Danielle raised the question whether blogging can truly be consistent with humility (can a writer practice Christian self-forgetfulness when her own every move and thought becomes blog-fodder?). Fr. Orsi worries that unless we are very careful, blogging may not be consistent with charity, either.

In this he agrees with Megan, who wrote:

Hiding behind a disguise of “Anonymous” has the possibility of turning normally reasonable folks into trolls who want to stir up trouble and hurt feelings. All we can do is be true to our own selves, especially as Christians and children of God....And never lose sight of the fact that these are real people we are interacting with here.  Christ resides in them, and we must never cause scandal.

I’m sure I’m not alone in often having felt mortified by comments left even at reputable Catholic blogs. The more influential the blog, the more likely it’s being read by non-Catholics who will form their impressions of what Catholics are like from the things we discuss and the manner in which we discuss them.

Pagan Rome said of the early Christians, “See how they love one another!” What impression are we leaving?

The problem is, the question of what is and isn’t appropriate to write, repeat or reveal on the internet is itself a perennial--and sometimes acrimonious!-- debate in the blogosphere.

And that’s where I find Fr. Orsi’s article helpful. He makes the matter more than a question of temperament and sensibility, and helps clarify where our moral obligations lie.

I’ll just single out three especially good points and hope you read the entire article.

1. Not everything you read on the internet is true. Before you think, “Duh,” think about the particular sense in which Fr. Orsi means this.

the power to reach a wide audience while remaining in the shadows has proven a source of great temptation. All too many online commentators have been dazzled by this technology that magnifies personal identity and stokes the ego while providing a shield from the consequences of their words. Whole new avenues of calumny have been the result.
In the area of business, disgruntled customers have taken to the World Wide Web to vent their dissatisfaction with products, companies and providers of professional services—sometimes in the well-intentioned hope of helping others avoid real problems they encountered, but other times out of what seems mere peevishness....Taking their cue from real customer outrage, some businesses have found blogging a perfect means of slamming the competition. They pose as dissatisfied buyers, denigrating or starting false rumors about competing firms or products.

I can think of at least six products I’ve been asked by email to boycott because of some fantastic story that a quick search at Snopes.com proved to be false. This kind of thing can destroy a business and put innocent people out of work. It’s not benign.

2. Calumny is cheating, and it conforms us to this world. I love this point. He really puts his finger on something that has bothered me without my being able to articulate why.

It does not play by the rules. It is unsportsmanlike in the extreme, even viciously so. It uses half truths, innuendo, misrepresentation, disregard for context and downright lies, all in the hope that some negative bit of mud, no matter how distorted or absurd, will stick to the person or organization under attack....
Such...tactics have been used to discredit public figures and private persons alike, to disparage companies, institutions, government agencies, political movements, and of course, churches and religious groups. And the impact is multiplied by other bloggers who link to the original posting or pick up a story and disseminate it further, even around the world.

3.What we repeat we will answer for. Fr. Orsi reflects that unfortunately he is seeing as much calumny in Christian circles as in the world at large, often disguised as “free discussion” or “the right to know.” He cites a sad example.

A recent occurrence in my own diocese serves as an example. Allegations of moral lapses on the part of a brother priest were circulated by interlinked blogs, magnifying the actual facts of the case being investigated, and layering on multiple rumors that featured a colorful variety of imagined illicit behaviors—all before anything was proven. While a ministry was seriously (perhaps fatally) compromised, no allowance was given for the political conflicts existing within the parish or the motives of those who spread the stories. What were little more than assumptions took on a life of their own when a chain of bloggers spread them within minutes throughout the diocese and well beyond.

Can you imagine a bunch of Catholics crushing a priestly ministry so lightly?

Here’s why this kind of anonymous allegation is unjust, and gives the anonymous critics an unfair advantage.

They can declare someone guilty without evidence, forcing them to defend themselves by having to disprove a negative. And they can be as outlandish and judgmental as they like while remaining shielded from the reactions and reproaches they would encounter in signed commentary or face-to-face debate. This contradicts the two foundational principles of American justice: (1) assumption of innocence until proof of guilt and (2) the right of the accused to face the accuser. But it tends to liberate bloggers from moral constraint by anesthetizing conscience.

In the end Fr. Orsi recommends the following rules for blogging and commenting, based on his own observations and on the Catechism’s discussion of sins against the 8th Commandment. Among them are the following:

Any anonymous blog or unsigned response has the weight of an unsigned letter and so should be quickly dismissed.

A blog that is particularly vicious toward persons can be indicative of psychological illness, or simply an evil person, and is therefore suspect.

Any blog that is unedifying and demeaning to another person should not be read. It is the equivalent of pornography.

Responding to these calumnious blogs, even for defense of the individual or for clarification, only encourages the offender and prolongs the life of the calumny.

Those who suffer calumny on anonymous blogs are, for the most part, better off enduring it. Seeking to correct misrepresentations usually has the effect of keeping controversy alive and adding to its interest value.

While reading such blogs is damaging to its target (since it causes unwarranted negative speculation about another’s character), it also hurts the reader since it causes scandal, sowing pessimism and despondency.

Calumnious blogging is a serious offense against God’s law. Those who engage in it are jeopardizing their immortal souls and the souls of others.

For anyone to make a judgment concerning a person’s character based on what is read on a negative blog is to be a formal cooperator in the evil perpetrated by the blogger.

As the comments at Danielle’s original post make clear, blogs at their best can be a wonderful source of information and moral support.

But let’s face it, the blog wasn’t built with courtesy in mind. “Blogs,” after all, are web-logs --diaries-- and who minces words in a diary? The form is made to capture quick, of-the-moment impressions and passions.

Which is one thing in a private diary, but it’s another matter when the things we think in private --but wouldn’t say in public-- travel around the world at the press of a button and remain stored in internet cache --and accessible to search engines-- pretty much until Christ returns in glory.

As Megan indicated, these are dangers inherent in the form, and if we’re going to use them for the good, Christians are going to have to impose their own forms and protocols on our blogs.

I have two ancillary thoughts here. One is about how to carry on debate charitably (no fair invoking “charity” as a means of shutting down opposition). The other is an observation about group discussions I’ll want your feedback on. But as this post is running long, I’ll save those matters for later in the week.

Comments (6) | Filed under blogging, charity, free speech, rash judgment
 Print Article   Email a Friend   

Related articles by this author:

• Great Debate
• Watch What You Say

Related articles by other authors:

• Welcome to Faith & Family Live!
• Introduction
• My Name is Lisa, and I’m a Catholic Mom
• Here’s Rachel!
• Legacy

Post a Comment

By submitting this form, you give Faith And Family Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.

Brotherly Love?

Home

Tuesday Talking