Catholics, Evangelicals, and the Internet

In the 17th century the Catholic Church pronounced as foolish nonsense Galileo's sun-centered theories. Somewhat later, leaders of said church found such a reaction was dubious and Galileo's discovery provided no damage to faith. The Catholic church has had a tendency to overreact when faced with new potential harm to traditional beliefs, but at least been on the cutting edge of facing possible danger to anything within site of Christianity's self-professed theological Monroe Doctrine. With this in mind we fast forward to today when we consider the debates over internet censorship. In place of "to be or not to be" we ask, "to censor or not to censor," but seldom come up with any rules set in granite by which we may guide our actions. Conservatives and Christians are wary about going too far and resurrecting old ghosts of fanaticism while at the same time worrying their children might get a hold on a proverbial Debbie does Dallas in HTML format, downloadable with only a click. Several Catholic leaders decided to jump into the fray on Friday, March 27, 1998.

In a meeting with numerous computer executives, Roman Catholics searched their souls to find how they shall react to the cyberspace menace - "one of the greatest threats to morality and decency that we face today" as one participant said. One idea that was brought up was a method of rating web sites. One looks with humor at the first reading of this suggestion, picturing a Siskel and Ebert in priestly garb rating the newest internet spots every Sunday night, giving each a "thumb up or down." How such a rating system would be successful confuses me. Would our church leaders announce each site's rating every Sunday after church announcements? Or would they publish their conclusions in a newsletter to be distributed to each household? What proportion of the web sites out there would they actually be able to search out and comment on? Would it really impact users or would they prefer to surf the net while discarding the "Pg or R" ratings of the local priestly internet guild which probably doesn't have as much time to devote to the internet as they should have?

These are good questions and we can sense the apprehension apparent when leaders are not sure how far to jump on the "pin-a-warning label-on-the net" bandwagon. Esther Dyson, an expert on cyberspace and chairwoman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, jumped in with both feet whereas Cardinal John Foley was somewhat restrained. Foley worries, as I do, there may be no firm way of policing the internet by rating web sites although he hoped the church would develop a way. Brother Mary Aquinas provided further reason for restraint, or at least caution, by reminiscing how some church leaders derided the development of the printing press in the 15th century as a tool of the devil. "Our competition is not other religions, but the people who want to make money on the Internet. The new technology is a providential gift from God to the church. It is like any gift, it can go either way." Aquinas is right, of course, because nearly anything, whether a gift or not, can be used for good or bad, for praising the Lord or degrading society. The internet is a great development and it can be used for harm, but no more than free speech can. The gift of free speech allowed Jesus to utter his brilliant beatitudes and also allows your least favorite rap group to utter lyrics that promote cop killing. The danger in censoring any media is that by killing the cancer we hate we may unwittingly destroy the freedom we ourselves enjoy.

Actually, all Christians are facing this issue. Computing Today, a Christian magazine which comments on software and the internet, mentioned censorship briefly in its July/August issue. Richard Alexander took pen to paper - or fingers to keyboard - to reply. Several students at his Christian college opposed the Communications Decency Act and turned their web pages black during the internet-wide day of protest. In a computer column he wrote in the school newspaper he argued against them and they argued back. "Because of the exchange between the student body and me," Alexander writes, "I've seen a Christian who was attacking the porn industry denounced by Christians defending the rights of pornographic magazines." It is sad to see Christians facing off against each other on this censorship issue, but this is the reality of what we face.

Alexander's response to Computing Today shows how he himself wrestles with the problem. He warns against those who defend pornographers, saying that sometimes those who call themselves "Christian" may be an agent for the other side. I consider this a little harsh because I believe the Christians he argues against have the purest Christian intentions in mind. He then applauds Brian Proffit for noting in a preceding issue that if Christians begin censoring "odd groups" on the internet, they will face censorship. Yet Alexander warns that this principle could be extended too far because "good and evil cannot coexist." The evil in Alexander's statements seems to be pornographers because "allowing pornographers unimpeded use of the internet does not tend to allow freedom for Christians on the internet." In other words, evil has a stifling effect on good and for each net gain in freedom of speech on the internet, there is no net gain in freedom of speech for Christians..

We may debate the arguments of Alexander, Catholics, and all Christians who are bold enough to face this issue head on. There will be those who are ready to censor the net because, although they cannot define "porn," they know it when they see it. Then there are those who want to give the internet its right to be what it is claimed to be: total anarchy. I don't believe either extreme view is correct, yet as America we can continue to debate. But one thing is sure: the internet is here to stay, as is Christianity.

Sources: Watertown Daily Times, (March 28, 1998), Watertown, WI; Computing Today, (September/October 1997)