Church in over their Heads again

Panda Bear

It seems the Church has once again put there almighty big foot in it again.

---

The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales has warned that social networking websites, texting and e-mails are undermining community life.
Archbishop Vincent Nichols said MySpace and Facebook led young people to seek what he termed short-lived friendships, with quantity becoming more important than quality.
He said a key factor in suicide among young people was the trauma caused when such loose relationships collapsed.
Advertisement

Archbishop Nichols said society was losing some of its ability to build communities through inter-personal communication, as the result of excessive use of texts and e-mails rather than face-to-face meetings or telephone conversations.

---

Experts now on rural living and suicide ?? and hell bent on alienating us all futher from the church. Wonder if Jesus would have used bebo or Facebook. More people on Myspace, Bebo, Facebook than visiting the churchs in our country I would say. More visitors on facebook among ALL Race, Color and Religion than you will find in WestMinster or St Patrick's Cathederal

PDN

Archbishop Nichols has served for eight years as the chairman of the management board of the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults. He also holds a postgraduate degree in Education. I think he is entitled as anyone else to express his views on the impact of social networking sites etc.

However, it seems that any opinion proferred by a Catholic leader on any subject merits a hysterical response nowadays.

dvpower

Was there a hysterical response?

The optics of a Catholic Archbishop giving out about social networking sites are always going to be bad (what would he know about it? etc...). Very few people are going to see past the messenger to read the message.

I wonder what he'd think about boards.ie?

PDN

dvpower wrote: »

Was there a hysterical response?

Yes - the OP. Claiming the church is in over its head. :rolleyes:

robindch

dvpower wrote: »

Was there a hysterical response?

I think people responded in hysterics. There's a subtle, but important difference.

BTW, Mr Nichols' facebook page is staying disappointingly mum.

Tim Robbins

I'd be in agreement with the Bishop. Facebook is for sado's.
At least with boards, you can have a debate / discussion and learn something or just get useful information and advice.

Húrin

I think the guy's linking it to suicide is overly dramatic but he has a point about the internet, for all its benefits, playing a part in social isolation. I've heard that it is a factor in marital breakdowns in Ireland.

jill_valentine

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I'd be in agreement with the Bishop. Facebook is for sado's.
At least with boards, you can have a debate / discussion and learn something or just get useful information and advice.

Both he - and your good self, I'd suggest - are missing the point of Facebook.

What makes Facebook so popular is that it's used as a social tool. In a way neither Bebo nor Myspace facilitated, people use Facebook as a means to organise and document their real world social lives - events, pub nights, birthday parties, etc.

Nearly everyone I know uses it a supplement to real world communication, rather than a replacement. Boards has plenty of it's own meet-ups and all, but it's still very much an internet community for internet users - Facebook is an online tool used mainly by relatively casual internetters as a cheap way of keeping each other up to date that won't eat up all their credit.

The archbishop may have a point - although I don't think he does - about the internet in general, but he's completely misunderstood the purpose and application of social networking sites.

dvpower

robindch wrote: »

I think people responded in hysterics. There's a subtle, but important difference.

BTW, Mr Nichols' facebook page is staying disappointingly mum.

I am (like) so uncool -bishops are on facebook and I'm not! I am so behind the curve.

(I was going to go on about twitter, but I don't know if thats current any more - Soon we'll all be communicating through prayer - the ultimate communications tech.)

Panda Bear

All point taken and all very relative. Nothing hyterical only we often find Church Members so I am a bit off the mark , it members rather than church speaking. Then only days later we find them withdrrawing or elaborating some more on the actual point they are trying to convey.

Degree's dont amount to much when you jump into something with absolutely no degree of use purpose or merit. Many find much benefit in bust, travelling daily lives such as we have now to post, leave messages etc to friend and family. I know my own are scattered across the glode and it is a wonderful way NOT to lose contact like my own Aunts Uncles and other when they lost contact with brothers sister etc only to try and resurrect them many many years later. We are not idiots and do value the personal and live contact of all or friends and family.

Perhap the Archbisop should sign up and spread the message in this new media format.

Phototoxin

I personally think its a bit hypocritical ... has he not heard of www.xt3.com
(as opposed to my own ... exteatree.com ) which it claims 'is so good even the pope uses it' as it was set up to facilitate the promotion of WYD.

I think its a typical RC political thing with one hand not knowing what the other is doing

Tim Robbins

jill_valentine wrote: »

Both he - and your good self, I'd suggest - are missing the point of Facebook.

What makes Facebook so popular is that it's used as a social tool. In a way neither Bebo nor Myspace facilitated, people use Facebook as a means to organise and document their real world social lives - events, pub nights, birthday parties, etc.

Nearly everyone I know uses it a supplement to real world communication, rather than a replacement. Boards has plenty of it's own meet-ups and all, but it's still very much an internet community for internet users - Facebook is an online tool used mainly by relatively casual internetters as a cheap way of keeping each other up to date that won't eat up all their credit.

The archbishop may have a point - although I don't think he does - about the internet in general, but he's completely misunderstood the purpose and application of social networking sites.

Facebook has an element of keeping up with the jones's about it which I find incredibly sad.

The type of communication it uses is broadcasting which makes it very superficial and impersonal.

It does to real friendship what the playstation and x box do to real sport.
How's that for an analogy :-)

jill_valentine

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Facebook has an element of keeping up with the jones's about it which I find incredibly sad.

Spoken like somebody with OMFG less than 50 Facebook friends!

No, seriously though, it's as good as the people who use it. It looks superficial from a distance, because it's only half the story.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It does to real friendship what the playstation and x box do to real sport.
How's that for an analogy :-)

Faulty. :cool:

Facebook doesn't work in isolation; it is not a substitute for real friendship, or an imitation of it.

It doesn't claim to be, and that's not why people use it. It's an integrated part of people's social lives. It's a convenient way to get everybody organised and keep each other up to date with each others plans, and it's way cheaper than phoning or texting everybody. Afterwards, you've got photos, videos and banter, and sort out whatever you're doing next.I actually don't use Facebook a whole lot anymore - I use a 3 datamodem :rolleyes: - but it was a really handy way to stay in touch with my friends when I wouldn't or couldn't have conveniently done otherwise.

To me, the Archbishop's griping sounds a bit like a misguided attempt to sound up-to-date, with a healthy dash of ludditism for good measure. He's misunderstood it's basic purpose, for one thing, in a way that kind of reminds me of my mam. You know, picks up a few buzzwords, strings them together with the help of a Mary Kenny column, and away he goes.

Besides, he does, presumably, believe in the validity of the written word of a book. If it came in .PDF, would he have been less convinced...?

prinz

He was 100% correct. And as PDN pointed out more than qualified to proffer an opinion. The condescending attitude towards the clergy of any denomination is astonishing these days. The "What would they know" brigade.

Perhaps he was referring to cases like this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3234692.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7204172.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier

http://www.mediastandardstrust.org/medianews/blogs/blogdetails.aspx?sid=12122

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1204062/The-fake-world-Facebook-Bebo-How-suicide-cyber-bullying-lurk-facade-harmless-fun.html

http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/suicide_prevention/contagion.htm

http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news-dhssps-110707-mcgimpsey-wants-action

All you have to do is visit the Relationship Issues forum every few days to see the number of "issues" based on Facebook, Bebo and texting 'relationships' and internet dating. Social Networking Sites destroy social skills simple as. Funny I don't remember anyone declaring McGimpsey to be out of touch, misguided and in over his head... it's a funny thing whenever a man of the Church mentions something that has been talked about for years, it suddenly becomes controversial and headline news.

Fanny Cradock

For my part I think that social networking, while largely positive, is probably open to as many abuses as any other communication medium. So, in this regard, it is perfectly valid to discuss the negative consequences that may arise from its use.

However, it seems that whenever a member of the clergy pipes up with an opinion on any given social issue the point, however pertinent, is missed by a number of people as a matter of course. Again, it seems that they cant quite get over the fact that a someone who peddles an irrelevant and antiquated belief should dare express an opinion.

Tim Robbins

jill_valentine wrote: »

Facebook doesn't work in isolation; it is not a substitute for real friendship, or an imitation of it.

It doesn't claim to be, and that's not why people use it. It's an integrated part of people's social lives. It's a convenient way to get everybody organised and keep each other up to date with each others plans, and it's way cheaper than phoning or texting everybody. Afterwards, you've got photos, videos and banter, and sort out whatever you're doing next.I actually don't use Facebook a whole lot anymore - I use a 3 datamodem :rolleyes: - but it was a really handy way to stay in touch with my friends when I wouldn't or couldn't have conveniently done otherwise.

I hate anything that encourages people not to be challenged and I know plenty of saddo's who use it. They update it every day with things such as "I'm going for a walk now".

Another person I know regularly updates it constantly trying to impress everyone with how many parties they go to.

Basically I just know loads of people who sue it to express the saddest and shallowest parts of their lifes.

To me, the Archbishop's griping sounds a bit like a misguided attempt to sound up-to-date, with a healthy dash of ludditism for good measure. He's misunderstood it's basic purpose, for one thing, in a way that kind of reminds me of my mam. You know, picks up a few buzzwords, strings them together with the help of a Mary Kenny column, and away he goes.

Well I think he was spot on. Christianity works pace when it challenges sad normalities, bad habbits and just silly things we do without really thinking about.

Biro

jill_valentine wrote: »

Spoken like somebody with OMFG less than 50 Facebook friends!

No, seriously though, it's as good as the people who use it. It looks superficial from a distance, because it's only half the story.



Faulty. :cool:

Facebook doesn't work in isolation; it is not a substitute for real friendship, or an imitation of it.

It doesn't claim to be, and that's not why people use it. It's an integrated part of people's social lives. It's a convenient way to get everybody organised and keep each other up to date with each others plans, and it's way cheaper than phoning or texting everybody. Afterwards, you've got photos, videos and banter, and sort out whatever you're doing next.I actually don't use Facebook a whole lot anymore - I use a 3 datamodem :rolleyes: - but it was a really handy way to stay in touch with my friends when I wouldn't or couldn't have conveniently done otherwise.

To me, the Archbishop's griping sounds a bit like a misguided attempt to sound up-to-date, with a healthy dash of ludditism for good measure. He's misunderstood it's basic purpose, for one thing, in a way that kind of reminds me of my mam. You know, picks up a few buzzwords, strings them together with the help of a Mary Kenny column, and away he goes.

Besides, he does, presumably, believe in the validity of the written word of a book. If it came in .PDF, would he have been less convinced...?

You have a point but you need to remember that not all Facebook users use it in the way that you describe, so the bishop may have a perfectly valid point. You and I use it in the way you describe because we have made our friends and have been introduced to Facebook afterwards, but what about kids who start using Facebook at a very young age? It's a whole new outlook on it as a social tool that we probably don't see. Using it as a supliment is fine, but somehow I don't think that's what is going on with 6 and 7 year old school kids these days.

PDN

Facebook is a tool, a form of communication that can used in ways that are beneficial or harmful. All forms of communication can be used for good or evil. For example, the internet can be used to spread child pornography, but it can also be used to coordinate aid projects in the developing world.

I actually use Facebook a lot. My job requires that I network with a lot of people in many different countries - and Facebook is great for doing that in a superficial way that can initiate deeper stuff if necessary.

Undoubtedly there are some, particularly teenagers, who spend so much time on Facebook or Bebo that they don't have any time left for the real world. They think that having 310 'friends' on Facebook equals real relationships - and that is storing up a load of emotional trouble for the future.

JimiTime

Like others have said, its not that these things are bad from the outset, but their misuse etc can have dire consaquences. TV, video, the internet, X-Box, they are all the same in this way too.

The issue is accentuated, when the next generation start their online 'socialising', from a very young age. That is, before they've developed social skills in the real world. As adults who honed their social skills in the real world 'before' the advent of online social networking, we can use it as a tool, and as Jill Valentine said, not in isolation. When it becomes the norm for up and coming generations, thats when it becomes a more potent threat.

I DREAD to think of what I would have let myself view if I had broadband as a 14 year old or before that even. I think upcoming generations are really going to need parental wisdom with regards the internet. Be it porn, social networking etc. I think someone bringing our attention to the obvious dangers of the internet is a good thing as long as its done in a non-sensationalist reasoned way.

Biro

PDN wrote: »

Undoubtedly there are some, particularly teenagers, who spend so much time on Facebook or Bebo that they don't have any time left for the real world. They think that having 310 'friends' on Facebook equals real relationships - and that is storing up a load of emotional trouble for the future.

I agree, and that's more or less what the bishop was saying. But alas, because the message came from a member of the Catholic Church, it gets tarred as an over-reaction, an out of touch rant, a means of further distancing them from us, etc.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I actually use Facebook a lot. My job requires that I network with a lot of people in many different countries - and Facebook is great for doing that in a superficial way that can initiate deeper stuff if necessary.

How about LinkedIn or use a blog?

Undoubtedly there are some, particularly teenagers, who spend so much time on Facebook or Bebo that they don't have any time left for the real world. They think that having 310 'friends' on Facebook equals real relationships - and that is storing up a load of emotional trouble for the future.

I have one friend, who has over 400 friends on facebook but never even bother getting back to me about a wedding invite.
Priorities and all that...

Rev Hellfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How about LinkedIn or use a blog?

If facebook is johnny no mates, then linkedIn is for wageslaves looking for validation and blogs are ... well the less said about blogs the better.

Use a phone and email I say, but I'm a traditionalist

Nodin

I hate Blogs...much like the "cam" produced the idea that "pictures=IM A MODEL", the Blog has led to "I've linked to a News article and made an observation=Citizen Journalist and Sage"......

Fanny Cradock

I've read through a little of what the Archbishop said, and his words seem eminently sensible. I wonder how many people bothered to do the same before criticising?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5956719/Facebook-and-MySpace-can-lead-children-to-commit-suicide-warns-Archbishop-Nichols.html

Doctor DooM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've read through a little of what the Archbishop said, and his words seem eminently sensible. I wonder how many people bothered to do the same before criticising?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5956719/Facebook-and-MySpace-can-lead-children-to-commit-suicide-warns-Archbishop-Nichols.html

I don't know. I would say he is missing the point there- the child was bullied. Surely the important thing to note is why the child was bullied, not the media used to bully. It's similar to blaming Judas Priest for that poor kid who tried to take his own life.

Secondly, I think individualism is something to be treasured, and doesn't necessarily mean someone alienating themselves from a community- in fact, from anecdotal experience, I'd say the community is more likely to dislike someone who is "too different". A lack of desire to be individual surely has lead to these fair weather Christians who I believe most posters here agree aren't a great thing, as they don't want to rock the boat.

Can't comment on the football thing though.

Fanny Cradock

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I don't know. I would say he is missing the point there- the child was bullied. Surely the important thing to note is why the child was bullied, not the media used to bully. It's similar to blaming Judas Priest for that poor kid who tried to take his own life.

Secondly, I think individualism is something to be treasured, and doesn't necessarily mean someone alienating themselves from a community- in fact, from anecdotal experience, I'd say the community is more likely to dislike someone who is "too different". A lack of desire to be individual surely has lead to these fair weather Christians who I believe most posters here agree aren't a great thing, as they don't want to rock the boat.

Can't comment on the football thing though.

Yes, bullied online. Lets not loose sight of what he said. He didn't say that social networking is bad, rather it can possibly lead to bad things.

"Facebook and MySpace might contribute towards communities, but I'm wary about it."

However, instead of people looking at his words that were prompted by the suicide of a girl, we bizarrely get people moaning about the church putting their foot in it. It's like they suffer from some cognitive inability to separate their dislike of all things churchy from valid questions or opinions expressed by a member of the church. There is no reason that any form of communication should be above criticism.

As for individualism, I don't believe that he is complaining about people who choose to stand out from the crowd, he is talking about those who place themselves apart form the rest of the community in order to extract whatever they can from it. This is why he used the word "mercenaries" and discussed footballers out for only the cash. Initially it may seem like an odd gripe, but then again he is a passionate Liverpool supporter. He was also discussing the affects that individualism - which I actually read as the dissolution of the wider community or the marginalisation of certain people from the community - could have on vulnerable people, in this case the elderly.

patrickthomas

robindch wrote: »

I think people responded in hysterics. There's a subtle, but important difference.

BTW, Mr Nichols' facebook page is staying disappointingly mum.

I looked at his page, am so glad I am not on facebook now:D

Coriolanus

The medium is more or less irrelevant. I bet plenty of people had their hearts broken via snail mail (remember that?).
Bad things happen all the time, I haven't seen any compelling evidence that online interactions are inherently more risky.

Fanny Cradock

Nevore wrote: »

The medium is more or less irrelevant. I bet plenty of people had their hearts broken via snail mail (remember that?).
Bad things happen all the time, I haven't seen any compelling evidence that online interactions are inherently more risky.

Well, I would argue that there is quite a large difference between a personal letter and social networking. While communication is obviously the common string, it seems that they both go about it in a different ways and social networking has much broader applications. The Archbishop seems to be suggesting that the friendships amassed online are largely superficial. Whereas it seems reasonable to suggest that one generally only writes letters to those people close to oneself.

While you might not have seen any compelling evidence to suggest online interactions are inherently more risky than letters sent via the post (Have you actually looked? Or is this an assumption?), we are dealing with a case where a girl's suicide was at least related to online interactions. If this doesn't make one pause for thought then nothing will, I guess.

Given this most regrettable case and other similar deaths, the powerful effects that social networking and other online activities can potentially exert on peoples lives (be they positive or negative) is at least worthy of debate.

If a new drug is devised you can be sure that there would be through testing of that drug. Even then they sometimes get it badly wrong, the result of this failure can be some very nasty side effects from the drug. To me social networking is analogous to that new drug and public debate is the test to determine the effects it has on its users. To simply dismiss a valid debate by saying "bad things happen all the time" is irresponsible in relation to the vulnerable and self defeating if we consider each one of us as having some sort of corporate responsibility to the wider society.

Coriolanus

Well, I would argue that there is quite a large difference between a personal letter and social networking. While communication is obviously the common string, it seems that they both go about it in a different ways and social networking has much broader applications. The Archbishop seems to be suggesting that the friendships amassed online are largely superficial. Whereas it seems reasonable to suggest that one generally only writes letters to those people close to oneself.

I don't think anyone tops themself over a superficial relationship. Far from it, I think this girl was obviously quite heavily emotionally invested in the matter at hand.
I stand by my original point, the medium is more or less irrelevant. When someone is so heavily invested, extreme results will happen. We've all heard the happy tales of people ending up married to their WoW guildies etc, suicides and the less headline grabbing mere cases of depression are the flipside to that.

While you might not have seen any compelling evidence to suggest online interactions are inherently more risky than letters sent via the post (Have you actually looked? Or is this an assumption?), we are dealing with a case where a girl's suicide was at least related to online interactions. If this doesn't make one pause for thought then nothing will, I guess.

I haven't found any decent study on suicide rates amongst those involved in specifically online relationships as opposed to traditional ones, no, so it's not an assumption. I tend to follow literature dealing with gaming rather than social networking (I don't social network ) but I did go and look.
This'll sound horrifically callous to you all no doubt, but someone commiting suicide over such a relationship, given the growing interconnectedness of the world, especially amongst younger people, and the sheer bulk of people indulging in such interactions, made a death a statistical inevitability.
Is it a horrible instance? God yes. Is it worthy of special attention, above and beyond what research is being carried out into social networking etc? In my opinion, no, and this would be where I diverge from the good sir raising the issue.

Given this most regrettable case and other similar deaths, the powerful effects that social networking and other online activities can potentially exert on peoples lives (be they positive or negative) is at least worthy of debate.

Maybe it's just that I don't see social networking and online activities as any more powerful than normal interactions.
What it is, is absolutely aberrant compared to anything we've experienced in a few hundred years of physical evolution and thousands of years of social evolution. That, I think is why it garners so much attention. It's new, and to a certain percentage of people, it's scary.
People exert powerful effects on other people, the social network sites facilitate the interactions, but hell, so does putting your kids on the bus to school with a few dozen others.

Doctor DooM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, bullied online. Lets not loose sight of what he said. He didn't say that social networking is bad, rather it can possibly lead to bad things.

So can nuclear physics or a scalpel if used incorrectly. I'm with "the media is unimportant". It's forest for the trees. That teenager is probably no more invested in Myfacespacebo than I am in Boards. However, I have enough emotional maturity to deal with the trollish "I hope you dies" I get. Some poor kid doesn't.

Edit- Not too happen with individualism being associated with mercenary activity, either.