The Working Catholic: Media and Meaning, Part I by Bill Droel

      There is a serious downside to use of computers and mobile devices, according to recent medical and social science reports. Several essays and books likewise point to the danger. Nonetheless concerned parents or stressed-out workers still reach superficial or incorrect conclusions about the internet and tech devices. For example, some well-meaning people say internet problems are due strictly to content. Don’t view porn and other trash, they continue, and you will be OK.

To better understand the influence of technology, learn something about the founders of some important companies—their philosophy, the culture of their businesses and more.

It feels odd to distinguish between the old internet and the new internet. The old internet was a tool for the military and for research facilities. As it grew, the internet had a populist aura. The feeling was that the internet is a friendly companion, a community, an extended family of pioneers. That language is still around but it does not apply to the new internet. By about 1995 the internet had become fully commercial. Yes, the content of the internet ranges over every taste, perspective and interest. But it is largely controlled by a small number of companies. The big players in today’s internet business oppose ideas of democracy and communal decentralization, writes Jonathan Taplin in Move Fast and Break Things (Little Brown, 2017). “The dominant philosophy of Silicon Valley [is] based far more heavily on radical libertarian ideology.”

Modernity (which dates from 1500, let’s say) remarkably elevates the dignity of each individual. This is a singular achievement. No longer can someone’s career or lifestyle be determined by the caste of one’s parents.  No longer can someone be denied opportunity because of one’s ethnic group or gender. Of course, modernity does not always deliver on its promise. But compared to pre-1500 days, modern individuals enjoy immense freedom. 

Libertarians take the otherwise good notion of a liberated individual to its extreme. They believe that, writes Taplin, attaining one’s individual happiness is the only moral purpose of life. That doesn’t mean that a libertarian walks down the block and knocks over older people in the way. A libertarian might sponsor a youth outing or visit the elderly. Simply that the criteria for any behavior is its potential to reward the individual actor—be it financially, psychologically or even spiritually, when defined in an individualistic way.

The big players of the new internet are moral arbiters each onto him alone (and it is a white male culture). They oppose any universal governance of the internet. They succeed—by their definition of success—because they are free to break the bonds, to go beyond, to be above, to push anything aside in the name of liberty. Taplin says their credo is: “Who will stop me.” The men who created the new internet “believed that they had both the brilliance and the moral fortitude to operate outside the normal strictures of law and taxes” and other restraints. They “truly believe that technology can deliver happiness” by its very nature. Thus critical to the success of the big tech companies “is the ability to maintain the illusion that they are working for the greater good even while pursuing policies that serve only their own needs.” Some tech giants give away money and sponsor anti-poverty programs. It is possible that in doing so some of the tech giants are totally sincere. In fact, for some the illusion is their reality.

 We take the internet for granted; likewise cyberspace, the dish and cable box, mobile devices, apps and programs of all kinds. This technology is our default position. We don’t concern ourselves with the philosophy of the internet’s big owners. We assume the best whenever our mobile device helps us hail a ride or when our computer allows us to post a blog. We take it as obviously correct when Mark Zuckerberg says, “To improve the lives of millions of people [connect them] to the internet.” We hardly consider the downside of Zuckerberg and others promoting a world of isolated individuals who fend for themselves with a lifeline called the internet. We are content enough with the assumption that the way to better health care is through more and faster connections to web-doctors, cyber-insurance plans and computer-linked pharmacies with a drive-up window staffed by a robot. Better education? On-line courses. Better work experience? Robot colleagues. Better sports fandom? Watch the game on one’s own device…at the stadium, no less.

Is tech really an improvement? Or at a minimum a neutral force? A subsequent column will consider tech presumptions in light of Catholic philosophy.

Droel edits INITIATIVES (PO Box 291102, Chicago, IL 60629), a print newsletter on faith and work.

The Working Catholic: See, Judge, Act by Bill Droel

           Mount St. Joseph University in Cincinnati was the setting for a recent conference about young adult Catholics. It was a positive conference because no one complained about bishops, priests or Vatican policy. And no one faulted young adults for disaffection from worship or for their lifestyle. By design, several conference presentations were about bygone people and events. But the event was not a nostalgia trip. The conversation was forward-looking. The tone of the conference was directed outward toward work, family and neighborhood. The participants drew upon past experience, but only to emphasize the importance of listening to the real experience of today’s young adults. The conference was unanimous: Talking is worthless without organizing.

The Cincinnati conference was dedicated to a person who died more than 50 years ago: Cardinal Joseph Cardijn (1882-1967), the originator of the specialized Catholic Action method and the inspiration for several groups (Christian Family Movement, Young Christian Workers, Young Christian Students and more).  The Cardijn method and specialized Catholic Action mostly faded by the late-1960s--at least in the United States. There are Cardijn-inspired groups percolating in Latin America and Africa, conference participants learned. The Cincinnati gathering included representatives from the Republic of Guinea, El Salvador and Chile. Plus, there were representatives from Australia. 

Catholic leaders in the United States want to attract and retain young adults to our faith tradition. They sometimes use the term new evangelization. What Catholic leaders usually mean (and here I employ a big generalization) is attracting young adults into the church. The strategies include social events, vibrant liturgies, reverent pieties, service projects, inspiring talks and more. Many programs for young adult Catholics are worthwhile.

The basic premise for Cardijn was different, however. He did not start from the notion of bringing people into the church. In fact, he worried that young adult ministry can unwittingly reinforce individualism by conveying the impression that the church is separate from young adult environments. Instead, Cardijn and his movements sought to bring Christianity to young adults in their workplaces and schools and family settings. The basic unit is not the individual who searches for meaning or faith. The basic unit is a small group, formed among people who work together or study together or live near one another. Thus, ministry is not something done for young adults; it is done by young adults with an emphasis on their own formation. Like a chorus, participants in Cincinnati repeatedly mentioned public friendship, relationships and the agency of the Holy Spirit.

Success in Cardijn’s method is measured not by how many new people are recruited for parish committees or by how many get involved in liturgical functions. Success is when a Catholic Action group achieves a small improvement in workplace policy or neighborhood relations or school settings.

Several presenters at the Cincinnati conference made the point that talk, talk, talk is not formation. A book club that considers pastoral theology, a speakers’ series during Lent, an intensive RCIA curriculum, a summer theology update program, or a monthly discussion group about Catholic topics is OK. But these do not really form or retain young adults. The secret ingredient is action. Not run-around activity with only vague goals in mind. No, the key is small focused action directed at a subpar policy or practice in the school, neighborhood or workplace. And then… now this must occur… a reflection on the action by the entire small group.

The Cardijn method is a tad sophisticated, yet it can be implemented by ordinary people in workaday settings. It requires patience, but it doesn’t have to be perfect all the time top-to-bottom, beginning-to-end. Katie Sellers, for example, tried a little Cardijn among her high school students at DePaul Cristo Rey in Cincinnati. She was teaching Catholic morality. But the students, Sellers admitted to the conference participants, were snoozing. So she introduced a case study about a woman in jail. Then the students went through the Cardijn steps: Look at this situation carefully; judge the situation in light of our own experience and our Catholic principles; act in some way. Amazingly, the students interviewed lawyers and others in criminal justice, they read Catholic documents, they collected supplies and eventually arranged a tele-meeting with the prisoner. She, in turn, encouraged the students to continue their study and their actions.

Frank Ardito from Illinois, a veteran of Catholic Action, also provided the conference with examples. Sure, he admitted, one or another small group session might fizzle. Maybe the guidebook wasn’t clear that week. Maybe the group leader misinterprets the prevailing mood. But over time the process does form people in the faith. They want to belong to the group and they want to make a difference back in their workplace or school.   

Bob Pennington is a young parent and a teacher. He was responsible for the details of the Cincinnati conference. He has a young colleague in New York and they are in touch with others their age around the country, in addition to some international contacts. They do not intend to put the enthusiasm from their conference back up on a bookshelf. For them, what was past is the prologue. They want more action. Interested? Contact Pennington (robert.pennington@msj.edu).

-Bill Droel edits a print newsletter on faith and work, INITIATIVES (PO Box 291102, Chicago, IL 60629).

THE GUNPOWDER PLOT REVISITED

Remember the 5^th of November

The Gunpowder Plot

It is an event that should not be forgot

   Trump’s nomination of Jesuit-trained Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court is a reminder for me of the 1605 “Gunpowder Plot” in England.  English Roman Catholics attempted to blow up Parliament, the King and his family, with an explosion at Westminster Palace.  They were caught and executed for their attempted crime.

   The conspirators were ready for the interrogation they expected.  Jesuit sympathizers prepared a document on ‘equivocation’ which explained how to lie and then die with a clear conscience.  With the help of confessions, elicited by torture, the conspirators and Jesuit advisors were convicted of treason and executed.  The defeat of the treason plot is celebrated in England on November 5^th, a National Holiday with fireworks, called Guy Fawkes Day. 

   We can expect Jesuit-trained Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to use the tactic of ‘equivocation’ in his hearing before the Senate. The goal is to deceive with double-meaning statements.  A guide to ‘equivocation’ includes four important points:  Choose ambiguous words; omit information; interplay words and gestures: and employ mental reservation.*

    Common sense would indicate that ‘equivocation’ is sometimes necessary and moral but in Kavanaugh’s case the deception will be Roman Catholic, as defined by the extreme right of the Hierarchy, and be borderline treasonous.  Basic human rights for all is the U.S. American Credo, but Kavanaugh’s writings and statements do not indicate that he stands, without equivocation,  for basic rights for women, gays, workers and freedom of religion.  

    Kavanaugh has indicated that he does not believe that the U.S. President is subject to the law but, as Nixon believed, the President is a law unto himself.  Catholic Social teaching can be twisted to support such fascist views.  Pius XI supported fascist dictators Salazar of Portugal and Dollfuss of Austria.  He had a working relationship with Benito Mussolini and approved a Concordat with Adolf Hitler.  The Concordat removed the Church from Third Reich politics for the guarantee of Roman Catholic Church existence in Germany.  Pope    Pius XII supported Franco the Spanish dictator.*

     In the end, the United State Senate will determine whether Kavanaugh is appointed to  the Supreme Court.  Is it possible, in the “post truth” epoch, for the U.S. Senate to be a light in the Washington dark night of the soul and reject Kavanaugh?

*Shakespeare was fascinated by the Jesuit tactic called equivocation.  See: James Shapiro. 1606: William Shakespeare and the Year of the Lear, Faber & Faber, London, 2015.  Also, the play “Equivocation” by Jesuit Bill Cain with an appearance by Shakespeare himself.

*David I. Kertzer, The Pope and Mussolini, the secret history of Pius XI and the rise of Fascism in Europe. Random House, 2014