Do Catholics Need a New Code of Ethics for the Digital Age?

It is time for Christians to consider how technology affects our mutual relationships and with God.

Christian ethics and professor Kate Ott had never taken a technology or digital ethics class when she started lecturing on the subject. Instead, most of her research and teaching has focused on gender issues, healthy relationships, and violence prevention, particularly for teenagers. But diving into these issues, he found, led to questions about the role of technology in people's lives.

“For me, it's about how certain issues in society cause or exacerbate social oppression,” says Ott. “With the advent of social media, blogging and Twitter, I've started asking questions about how these media are helping or hindering the efforts of justice ”.

The end result was Ott's new book, Christian Ethics for a Digital Society. The book attempts to provide Christians with a model on how to become more digitized and understand the role of technology through the lens of their faith, a project that has never been realized in many faith communities.

"What I hope is that no matter what kind of technology I will address in the book, I am providing readers with a process that is replicable when someone reads the book," says Ott. "I wanted to provide readers with a model of how to unpack a digital concept, think to the theological and moral resources we have when we interact with that technology and ethical practices in relation to that technology. "

Why should Christians care about the ethics of technology?
Who we are as human beings is because of our commitment to digital technology. I can't assume that technology is these little devices outside of me that don't change who I am or how human relationships happen: digital technology is radically changing who I am.

For me, this raises fundamental theological questions. It suggests that technology also influences the way we relate to God or the way we understand human relationships and the Christian needs of forgiveness, for example.

I also think technology gives us a way to better understand our historical traditions. Technology is not new: human communities have always been reshaped by technology. The invention of the light bulb or the clock, for example, changed the way people understood day and night. This, in turn, shifted the way they worshiped, worked and created metaphors for God in the world.

The enormous influence of digital technology has had a much more radical impact on our daily life. This is just another stage of that recognition.

Since digital technology is so important in human society, why hasn't there been more conversation about Christian digital ethics?
There are some Christian communities that involve digital technology issues, but they tend to be evangelical or conservative Protestants, because these worshiping communities were also the first to adopt the technology, whether it be radio broadcasting in the 50s during the great movement. revivalist or the adaptation of digital technology in worship in the 80s and 90s in the megachurches. People of these traditions started asking questions about digital ethics because it was in use in their spaces.

But Catholic moral theologians, and most Protestants, were not exposed to the same type of technology in their faith communities so often, and therefore were not so interested in digital technology as a whole.

It wasn't until about 20 years ago that the explosion of digital technology and internet-based platforms caused other Christian ethics to start talking about digital ethics issues. And it's still not a very long or deep conversation, and there aren't many conversation partners for those who are asking these questions. When I graduated with my Ph.D. 12 years ago, for example, I was not taught anything about technology.

What's wrong with many of the existing approaches to technology and ethics?
Much of what I have seen in Christian communities is a rules-based approach to digital technology, with a few exceptions. This may appear to limit screen time or supervise children's internet use. Even among those who don't use such a prescriptive approach, many people tend to superimpose whatever their Christian theology is on digital technology in order to make judgments about what is right or wrong.

As a social ethic, I try to do the opposite: instead of driving with a theological premise, I want to look first at what is happening socially. I believe that if we start by observing first what digital technology is happening in people's lives, we can therefore better discern the ways in which our theological and value-based commitments can help us interact with technology or model it in new ways that develop more ethical communities. It is a more interactive model of how to involve technology and ethics. I am open to the possibility that both our faith-based ethics and our digital technology can be restored or appear different in today's digital world.

Can you give an example of how you approach ethics differently?
One of the things you hear a lot when it comes to the conscious use of technology is the importance of “unplugging”. The pope also came out and urged families to spend less time with technology so they can spend more time with each other and with God.

But this argument doesn't take into account the extent to which our lives have been restructured by digital technology. I can't pull the plug; if I did, I wouldn't be able to do my job. Similarly, we have restructured the way our children are moved from one activity to another in their age groups; there are no more free spaces for our children to spend time in person. That space has migrated online. Disconnecting, therefore, actually disconnects someone from their human relationships.

When I talk to parents, I tell them not to imagine that they are asking children to switch off from a "social network". Instead, they should imagine the 50 or 60 friends who are on the other side of the connection: all the people we have relationships with. In other words, for people who grew up in a digital world, as well as for those of us who migrated into it, whether by choice or by force, it's really about relationships. They might look different, but the idea that somehow online interactions are fake and the people I see in the flesh are real no longer fits our experience. I might interact with friends online differently, but I'm still interacting with them, there's still a relationship there.

Another argument is that people can feel radically lonely online. I was talking to a parent who said to me, “I think we misunderstand digital technology, because there are times I go online to interact with my family and friends who are not geographically close. I know them, love them and feel close to them even though we are not physically together. At the same time, I can go to church and sit with 200 people and feel completely disconnected. Nobody talks to me and I'm not sure we have shared values ​​or experiences. "

Being a person in a community doesn't solve all our loneliness problems, just as being online won't solve our loneliness problems. The problem is not the technology itself.

What about people who use social media to create fake characters?
First of all, we cannot speak at all. There are certainly some people who go online and purposely create a profile that is not who they really are, who lie about who they are.

But there was also research showing that when the internet started, its anonymity allowed people from minority communities - LGBTQ people or young people who were socially awkward and had no friends - to really find spaces to explore who they were. and to gain a stronger sense of self-confidence and community.

Over time, with the growth of MySpace and then Facebook and blogs, this has changed and one has become a "real person" online. Facebook requires you to give your real name and they were the first to force this necessary connection between offline and online identity.

But even today, as in any in-person interaction, every social media or person online expresses only a partial identity. Take my online handle for example: @Kates_Take. I don't use “Kate Ott”, but I'm not pretending I'm not Kate Ott. I'm just saying my reason for being in this social media space is to promote the ideas I have as a writer and as an academic.

Just like I'm @Kates_Take on Instagram, Twitter and my blog, I'm also Professor Ott in the classroom and mom at home. These are all aspects of my identity. Nobody is false, yet nobody understands the complete totality of what I am in the world at any given moment.

We have moved on to an online identity experience which is just another aspect of who we are in the world and which contributes to our overall identity.

Does our understanding of God change the way we think about social media?
Our faith in the Trinity helps us understand this radical relationship between God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This is a purely equal relationship, but also in the service of the other, and it offers us a rich ethical approach to being in relationship with other people in our world. I can expect equality in all my relationships as I understand that this equality arises from the fact that I am willing to serve the other who is in relationship with me.

Thinking about relationships this way brings balance to how we understand who we are online. There's never a one-sided self-deletion, where I become this fake character online and fill myself with what everyone else wants to see. But even I don't become this perfectly accomplished person without flaws who is unaffected by online relationships with other people. In this way, our faith and understanding of a Trinitarian God leads us to a richer understanding of relationships and their give and take.

I also think that the Trinity can help us understand that we are not only spirit and body, we are also digital. For me, having this Trinitarian theological understanding that you can be three things at once helps to explain how Christians can be digital, spiritual and incarnate at the same time.

How should people deal with digital engagement more consciously?
The first step is to increase digital literacy. How do these things work? Why are they built this way? How do they shape our behavior and our reactions? What has changed in the past three years in relation to digital technology? So take it a step further. How was today's digital technology used or created, how has it changed the way you interact with others and form relationships? This, for me, is the step missing most from Christian digital ethics.

The next step is to say, "What do I long for from my Christian faith?" “If I can answer this question on my own, I can then start asking if my engagement with digital technology is helping or hindering me.

This, for me, is the digital literacy process: asking rich ethical questions about my relationship to my Christian faith and putting it together with the use of technology. If I think God is calling me to do or be something specific in the world, how is digital technology a place I can come and do it? And conversely, in what ways do I have to tap into or change my commitment because it's not the result of who I want to be or what I want to do?

Part of what I hope people get from the book is that too often we are overly responsive to digital technology. Many people fall on one end of a spectrum: either we say, "Get rid of it, it's all bad," or we're all-inclusive and say, "Technology will solve all our problems." Or the extreme is truly ineffective at managing the daily impact of technology on our lives.

I don't want anyone to feel they know everything about technology to interact with it or to feel so overwhelmed that they don't react. In fact everyone is making small changes on how they interact with technology on a daily basis.

Instead, I hope we create conversations with our families and faith communities about the ways we make all those small changes and modifications so that we can make a more concerted effort to bring our faith to the table when it comes to these conversations.

What is the Christian response to people who misbehave online, especially when this behavior discovers things like racism or violence against women?
A good example of this is Ralph Northam, the governor of Virginia. An online photo of his 1984 medical school yearbook was published, depicting him and a friend of his in black face and wearing a KKK costume.

Now no one should be released for behavior like this, even if it is in the past. But I'm concerned that the overwhelming response to incidents like this is a moral outrage associated with a complete attempt to wipe that person out. While I think it's important to recognize the horrible things that people have done in their past so that they don't keep doing them, I hope Christians would do more to consider people responsible in the future.

Until the actual and immediate damage is done, then aren't we Christians supposed to give people a second chance? Jesus doesn't say, "OK, you're sorry for your sins, now go ahead and do what you want or do it again." Forgiveness requires constant responsibility. But I'm afraid that our moral outrage always allows us to act as if the problems - racism, for example, which was the problem with Northam - didn't exist among all of us.

I often teach about the prevention of sexual abuse in congregations. Many churches think, "As long as we do background checks on everyone and don't allow anyone who is a sex offender or a history of sexual harassment to participate, then our congregation will be safe and well." But really, there are a lot of people who haven't been caught yet. Instead, what churches need to do is structurally change the way we protect people and educate each other. If we simply eliminate people, we don't have to make those structural changes. We don't have to look at each other and say, "How could I contribute to this problem?" The same is true in many of our responses to these kinds of online revelations.

If my response to Northam is limited to moral indignation and I can say to myself, "He shouldn't be governor," I can act like it's the only problem and I never have to think to myself, "How am I contributing to racism every day? "

How can we start building this more structural approach?
In this particular example, I think other people of the same public stature were needed to say that what Northam did was wrong. Because absolutely no doubt it was wrong, and he admitted it.

The next step is to find some sort of social contract. Give Northam a year to demonstrate that he will actively work on white supremacy issues from a structural and governmental perspective. Give it some goals. If he manages to do so over the next year, he will be allowed to continue in the position. If not, the legislator will impale him.

Too often we fail to allow people to change or make amends. In the book I give the example of Ray Rice, a football player who was arrested in 2014 for assaulting his girlfriend. He did everything people asked him to do, including the public, the NFL, and even Oprah Winfrey. But due to the backlash he never played another game. I actually think that's the worst message. Why would anyone do all the work of trying to change if there was no benefit? What if they lose everything both ways?