It is an interesting time to be an author. By “interesting,” I mean exciting/scary/confusing/revolutionary. All of this excitement/fear/confusion/revolution centers around modern technologies, which are changing the face of reading and publishing. There are two main effects that this technology is having on the industry:

1) Ease of publication: now anyone can cheaply “publish” a book, meaning that they can bind paper together in a nice format, or they can put their book on a e-reader device. What used to be a barrier to entry no longer exists.

2) E-Reading: reading doesn’t have to involve paper anymore. Now we can read on our computers, our phones, our iPads, our Kindles and a whole host of other devices. I have mentioned previously that most people erroneously believe that e-reading is just the next step in reading that everyone will eventually take, but there is no question that e-reading is a major factor in the publishing world now.

So what does this all mean? Some are claiming that old-school publishers are dinosaurs no longer needed in the 21st century. Others believe that the low barrier to entry means that readers need some form of filter to distinguish the wheat from the chaff and therefore traditional publishers are still very much needed. Either way, authors need to be more than just good writers these days; they need to be savvy about all the options available to them when it comes to publishing.

I tend to believe that traditional publishers are still quite necessary, but that they do have to adapt better to modern trends. The dirty little fact of self-publishing is that most of it is crap that the author’s mother wouldn’t even want to read. Most people recognize this and so they put their faith in established publishing companies to find the truly well-written works out there (and they realize that those publishing companies improve those works by their editing staff). But there are very good books hidden among the self-published masses, and some people have been very successful with self-publishing.

But one trend which most publishing companies have resisted is the trend of making more and more writing available for free. Due to the free nature of content on the Internet, most people have become more and more accustomed to paying nothing for something. They don’t mind paying for a book if they think it worthwhile, but they are often unwilling to do so “sight unseen” – they want to be able to at least read some of it first (this is why I got Our Sunday Visitor to agree to allow me to offer the Foreword and Introduction to my book Who is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew available as a free download – more details coming soon). Too many publishers, however, feel like the content of their books are not to be tasted until full admission has been paid.

Self-publishing has its place in the publishing world, but only in very specific instances. The authors most likely to be successful in self-publishing are those who already have built a following for their works through traditional publishing means (for example, if J.K. Rowling decided to self-publish a book, you don’t think it would fail, do you?), and also have the ability to pay others to edit their works (almost no author can self-edit – it is just an affliction of the trade). These trusted names do not need the engine of traditional publishers to drive them to success – but such people are few and far between.

That being said, traditional publishing houses must become more adept at not only following the trends in publishing, but setting them. They need to realize that there has been a seismic shift in the publishing world and their continued success depends on remaining in front of it. The world of books would become a chaotic place indeed if traditional publishers were to disappear, so here’s hoping that they can succeed in the 21st century.

As someone who has been deeply involved with modern technologies for over a decade, I know how powerful tools like the Internet can be for evangelization and apostolic works. However, that power cuts two ways, as technology can also take over someone’s life. That is why rule #6 of my Rules of Engagement for Catholics on the Internet is “Take at least one day off a week from the Internet.” Taking a day off allows one to refocus on what is truly important in life (hint: it’s not email).

Joe Carter over at First Things has come to a similar conclusion:

I never find the time to be alone with God during the week, so I’ve dedicated this Sunday afternoon to prayer. But before I do I should check my e-mail so I won’t be distracted. It won’t take long before. . . Thirty-two new messages, including one from the boss? I better reply right now. They might be important.

Some invitations from Facebook. Those are easy to clear out so let me accept them and I’m . . . hmm, I didn’t realize I had more notifications. Looks like Stacy finally launched a blog; I’ll just click through really quickly to check it out. Some great stuff. I really should add her blog to my RSS reader before I forget. What, “More than 100+ items”? Didn’t I just check this yesterday? I should really whittle these down a bit before it gets worse.

Wow, here I was about to focus on prayer and Bible study and my favorite theology-blogger has an excellent post on spiritual disciples. I have to share that with my own blog readers. That’s a topic that’s really on my heart today, and it won’t take long.

Hmm, looks like some comments are hung up in our spam filter again. Better fix that, or people will be discouraged from commenting. Oh man, does this guy misrepresent what I wrote. I can’t let that go unchallenged. Readers might be led astray. It won’t take long.

OK, now I need to buckle down and pray. Let me check the time on my iPhone—no way, it’s been four hours?—and who are these voicemails from?

Continue reading…

Modern technology, which was supposed to simplify our life and give us more leisure time, has in many ways done the opposite. We Christians need to be careful not to let it become our god, demanding all our time and attention.

E-reading: Revolution in the making or fading fad?

Give me that ol’ fashioned paper book any day.

The first “communion service” planned for Twitter has been postponed:

THE first communion service on the social-networking website Twitter did not take place last Saturday, after the Methodist minister organising it was asked to postpone it, while the Methodist Church examined the idea.

The Revd Tim Ross announced plans to hold the online service last month (News, 23 July), but decided to cancel it after senior Methodist offi­cials asked for more time to consider whether a communion in cyberspace was appropriate.

Mr Ross wrote in a statement on his website: “Whilst I have not been absolutely forbidden to perform com­munion on Twitter, British Meth­odist Church authorities have strongly urged me to cancel it.”

The online service was replaced by a series of short prayers for Christian unity, which, Mr Ross said, “was the motivation for the project”.

I’m sure many Catholics are scratching their heads about this story: how exactly do you have a “communion service” via Twitter? It’s not like you can send particles of bread or wine (or grape juice, the liquid of choice in many Methodist congregations) via that Interweb thingy. It looks like it was just intended to be a bunch of people receiving communion at the same time and tweeting about it:

The assistant secretary of the Methodist Conference, the Revd Ken Howcroft, said that the Church under­stood Mr Ross’s passion for the importance of communion and of using new media in mission; but the Church needed to “reflect and pray deeply in order to discern what developments are appropriate”.

In an article for the Methodist Recorder, Mr Ross said objections to the Twitter communion had been raised by the Methodist Church Faith and Order Committee, which said it was “not a valid communion”. The idea of “remote communion”, where participants receive the bread and wine at the same time, but in different places, “conflicts with the ethos of the Conference report ‘His Presence Makes the Feast’ (2003) which talks about ‘embodied wor­ship’”.

Mr Ross said the report’s reference to “disembodied spirits” did not say that participants must be in the same physical place, but rather referred to the attitude of those present. “The issue boils down to two questions: Is remote communion a valid com­munion? Is the Christian community on the internet a valid, gathered Christian community? If the answer to both these questions is ‘Yes’, then a communion service performed by such a community of believers must be valid and may be performed.”

Continue reading…

At least someone in the Methodist hierarchy sees the problem with this type of service. As useful as technology can be, it is no replacement for physical interaction between people. Just like one cannot receive confession via the phone and you can’t baptize someone without physically pouring water over them, so too is the Eucharist intended to be celebrated in the context of people physically gathered together. Our Lord was incarnate in the flesh and we need to realize that even with the rise of the Internet, we still are flesh-and-blood persons whose bodies are not mere appendages to who we are, but are integral to us as persons.

Ultimately, we will be saved through our physical bodies, not in spite of them.

There is a rising trend in Evangelical churches these days: pastors preaching to multiple congregations through hi-def technology:

The Sunday morning service at Fellowship Church in Dallas, Texas, was humming along with hymns and prayers when something unusual happened.

The lights in the sanctuary suddenly dimmed, and members of the church hushed as they peered at a pulpit shrouded in darkness. The parishioners then erupted in cheers and whistles as Ed Young Sr., the church’s senior pastor, emerged from the darkness with a microphone in hand.

“Please be seated, be seated,” Young said as he grabbed the Bible. “How are you guys doing today? Doing well?”

Young delivered his sermon, but he couldn’t hear or see his congregation respond: He wasn’t physically there.

Young’s parishioners were instead looking at a high-def video image of their pastor beamed into their sanctuary from a “mother” church in Grapevine, Texas.

Young is part of a new generation of pastors who can be in two places at one time. They are using technology — high-def videos, and even holograms — to beam their Sunday morning sermons to remote “satellite” churches that belong to their congregation.

The problem with this trend isn’t the technology, or even having sermons broadcast to multiple locations (EWTN essentially does this all the time). The real problem of this particular use of the technology is two-fold: (1) it encourages a cult of personality around the pastor, and (2) it diminishes the sacramental nature of Christianity, in which matter and spirit are combined in our path to salvation.

Most Protestant services revolve around the sermon, and the better the preacher, the more likely the service will be popular. Churches begin to revolve around the personality of the pastor, whose preaching ability is essential to the success of the church. But the structure of the Catholic Mass helps to prevent this problem. The focus of the Mass is not the sermon, but instead the Eucharist, in which Jesus Christ is truly present to us in sacramental form. The only cult of personality that should exist in the Church is around the person of Jesus Christ.It is great when a Catholic priest is a good preacher, but that is not the primary reason we come to Mass, and it should not be the high point of the liturgy. Instead, the miracle of the consecration is what should draw us: through the power of the Holy Spirit bread and wine are able to change  into the body and blood of our Lord.

Furthermore, we believe the “Word became flesh” thus elevating our physical natures to heights unimagined before the incarnation. This taking on of flesh by the Son of God has profound implications for our lives, and it effects how we live our Catholic Faith. The Church does not allow sacraments to occur without the physical presence of the minister (you can’t receive confession by phone, nor can a priest consecrate the bread and wine if he is not physically present). This isn’t anti-technology, it is good theology, for God uses physical matter to bring us closer to Him. As much as modern technology can help us in our walk with the Lord, nothing can replace one-on-one interaction with our pastors and fellow Christians.

Ultimately, it really isn’t very impressive that these pastors can “appear” at multiple locations at one time; Jesus Christ has been appearing at EVERY Catholic parish in the world since his Ascension! He doesn’t need hi-def technology to do it, but instead through a sacramental miracle he takes the form of bread and wine and allows himself to be received by his followers. No man-made technology will ever to able to top that!

One of the fundamental doctrines of the Enlightenment is that mankind is improving through time. As the centuries progress, man also progresses – intellectually, morally and even biologically. We are on our way to becoming a race of “super-men” who will dwarf previous generations in every way. Even though this belief cooled somewhat in the wake of the horrific 20th century, it is still an underlying presupposition of the Western world. Yet Scripture and Tradition tell us that before the End of Time and the Second Coming of Christ, great evils will occur, the world will face terrible cataclysms and the Church will be mercilessly persecuted.

So which is it? Is mankind getting better or worse over time? I think we need to break down our analysis into three separate categories: technological, theological and moral.

Technological
I think there is no question that technology has advanced incredibly over the years. Man has learned to manipulate nature in ways unimaginable in previous generations. If a man from the 10th century were to visit modern-day America, he would think we were all magicians with incredible powers (and he might also wonder why we talk into tiny boxes pressed to our ears all day). God gave man a wondrous intellect and he has used that power to achieve some unbelievable things.

Theological
This one is not so clear-cut. As a strong defender of the belief that the Church’s understanding of revelation over time develops, one might assume that I believe that mankind is progressing theologically. And in one sense, I do. Two thousand years after Christ the Church has had the opportunity to reflect on the deposit of faith given to us by our Lord and understand it better. So in that sense we have progressed. But it would be a mistake to think therefore that we 21st century Christians are “better” followers of Christ than those in the 1st or 5th century. The sources of holiness – primarily the sacraments – have not changed over time and they will not change until the End of Time. The graces we can receive through Baptism or the Eucharist are no different from the graces the first Christians received through these mysteries. Whereas the means to holiness for mankind made an infinite leap with the coming of Christ, it has not changed since his Ascension. So in one sense we have progressed theologically, but in another we have not.

Moral
This is the category which I believe we can unequivocally say that mankind has not progressed. The great promise of the Enlightenment was that once people became smarter they would also become good. History has shown this to be an empty promise. The last century mankind completed was the bloodiest of all time, with horrific wars, ethnic holocausts and the slaughter of millions of unborn children. Yes, in many ways society has improved as well; for example, the discrimination against African-Americans here in the United States has lessened dramatically in the past 100 years. But I cannot see how anyone can say that on a whole mankind has morally progressed. What seems to happen is that the victims of our moral failures shift from one group to another over time. But there are always victims of our immorality. This should not surprise us, as the doctrine of Original Sin tells us that all men are born in sin, and as every society consists of sinful men, it too will be sinful.

So, by my count, it appears to be a tie: 1.5 for progressing, and 1.5 against. But let us look more closely at these categories. The fact that we are progressing technologically but not progressing morally is potentially a terrible thing. Is it really progress that we can now obliterate an entire city with one bomb, but at the same time we have not become more moral? One hundred years ago, getting an abortion was a lot of work, now it is practically a trip to the drug store. So it is clear that, unlike Enlightenment thinkers, one should not equate technological and intellectual progress with moral progress. We might be smarter, but that only means that we can be more effective doing evil. It seems like the apocalyptic evils mentioned in Scripture are becoming less and less fantastical.

All of this is not reason for pessimism, however. We do not know the hour of the final days: it may be next week; it may be in 4,000 years. But we do know this: God continues to shower His grace upon us, and we will always be able to grow in holiness and thus personally progress in the spiritual life.

About a year ago, I had never heard of Fr. Robert Barron. Now it seems that every time I turn around online, he is there! And this is a good thing, as Fr. Barron is a wonderful explicator of the Catholic Faith today. Fellow blogger Brandon Vogt recently interviewed Fr. Barron on Catholics in the New Media and other topics. I thought the answer to Brandon’s first question was spot on:

Through “Word on Fire”, your podcasts, blogs, writings, and ambitious documentary, “The Catholicism Project”, you are reaching a multitude of people around the world. As someone using New Media to evangelize the globe, what advice would you give Christians on using these technologies in service of the Gospel, and what dangers lurk within their use?

Fr. Barron: My advice to those who would venture into the new media is to prepare yourself by immersing one’s self into the depths of the Catholic tradition. The great danger of the new media is that it seems to relish the superficial. There has been an ethos within the Church for many years to pursue an accommodationist strategy in regards to the culture, and this has resulted in a public presentation of the Faith that is often nebulous or “dumbed down.” Presenting the Faith as intelligible does not mean that we have to compromise the profundity of our great Tradition. We are the bearers of a Faith that inspired one of the most interesting civilizations that the world has ever known. The faithful are the route of access to this culture and its patrimony which is expressed in art, architecture, literature and theological reflection. The world needs to know all this, but we have to be sure that we know it ourselves before we can even begin to share the Faith with others.

Continue reading…

Longtime readers of this blog know about my schizophrenic view of modern technology. On the one hand, I have been deeply involved in technology for over 15 years and I greatly appreciate its many benefits. I blog, I have a facebook page, and I see how technology helps to spread the Gospel in many ways. On the other hand, I recognize that these benefits do not come without a cost: increased access to pornography, a disconnect between people, and increased emphasis on consumption are just a few downsides to new technologies. As Catholics, we are to use technology for divine purposes, but we must be honest about the downsides as well.

One of the biggest potential downsides, and one I think often overlooked, is how use of the Internet changes the way we think. I have noticed in my own life that increased use of the Internet affects my thought processes, making them less focused and more “jittery.” It appears that my experience is not unique:

The Web Shatters Focus, Rewires Brains

During the winter of 2007, a UCLA professor of psychiatry named Gary Small recruited six volunteers—three experienced Web surfers and three novices—for a study on brain activity. He gave each a pair of goggles onto which Web pages could be projected. Then he slid his subjects, one by one, into the cylinder of a whole-brain magnetic resonance imager and told them to start searching the Internet. As they used a handheld keypad to Google various preselected topics—the nutritional benefits of chocolate, vacationing in the Galapagos Islands, buying a new car—the MRI scanned their brains for areas of high activation, indicated by increases in blood flow.

The two groups showed marked differences. Brain activity of the experienced surfers was far more extensive than that of the newbies, particularly in areas of the prefrontal cortex associated with problem-solving and decisionmaking. Small then had his subjects read normal blocks of text projected onto their goggles; in this case, scans revealed no significant difference in areas of brain activation between the two groups. The evidence suggested, then, that the distinctive neural pathways of experienced Web users had developed because of their Internet use.

Continue reading…

The gist of this article is that the Web is increasing our brain’s ability to search and collect data, but it is also decreasing its ability to focus and do deep thinking. This is troubling on many levels, but it also could have serious implications for the spiritual life.

A few months ago, I wrote a multi-part series on The Nine Levels of Prayer. The first four levels of prayer are “ascetical prayer,” in which man is the initiator of prayer, not God. These levels include vocal prayer, meditation, affective prayer, and acquired recollection. These levels eventually lead one to the higher levels of prayer, such as contemplation, where the Holy Spirit initiates the prayer and leads the soul closer to God. But to get there, one typically needs to go through ascetical prayer, which means one needs to use his brain for focused, deep thinking. But what happens if the brain, through constant use of the Internet, no longer can do this type of thinking? Will we be able to pray as we ought?

This has not just been theoretical in my own life. Fr. Benedict Groeschel wrote in the Foreword to my book Who is Jesus Christ?:

I suggest that no one read this book quickly, for although it is not lengthy, it contains a great deal of information as well as many opportunities for prayer and meditation.  I also suggest that the reader delve into one chapter at a time, preferably with a copy of the Bible on hand.  Eric Sammons has not written the kind of book you can pick up and put down, simply picking up where you left off at some later time.  He has written instead a careful and thoughtful study that requires the reader to approach it with the same care with which it was written.

Fr. Benedict says that my book is not one to pick up and put down while reading, but it was also not one that I could pick up and put down while writing. I wrote the book originally as personal meditations, and much of it was composed while on retreat at a monastery, and the rest was done at libraries with my cell phone and laptop left at home. Not that I didn’t try to write elsewhere, but whenever I tried to write while sitting at my desk, I was unable to get anywhere: I simply cannot write reflections of any value if I have easy access to email or the Internet – I am too likely to be distracted and lose my focus.

This is one reason why one of my rules for the Internet includes #6: Take at least one day off a week from the Internet. If we are constantly “connected” then we run the risk of being disconnected in the spiritual life. We have to give ourselves the opportunities for focused attention on the Lord through prayer, lectio divina, and other spiritual practices. Otherwise, the focus of our lives will end up being Google, not God.

One of the things that most Catholic bloggers and blog-visitors would love to know is: “What are the most popular Catholic blogs?” Unfortunately, there has been no good way to find out, as such statistics have either not been publicly available or difficult to compile.

Until now.

As a service to the Catholic blog community, I decided to put on my programming hat and attack this problem. I knew two things: the list of Catholic blogs is publicly available at the Catholic Blog Directory and the number of Google Reader subscribers for every blog is also publicly available. The problem: who is going to manually determine the subscriber numbers for over 2,000 blogs? Thus, I wrote a program that would do the work for me (programmers are essentially lazy people), gathering the subscriber numbers for every Catholic blog at the Directory. I then ranked them in order by number of subscribers. Below is the top 25 plus a link to the top 200.

Big red disclaimer: this list is based on Google Reader subscribers only. I imagine that this is a good indicator of a blog’s popularity compared to other blogs, but it does not measure actual traffic to the site or the total number of subscribers across different feed readers. Furthermore, it doesn’t guage a blog’s current popularity as much as its popularity over the full history of the blog.

Top 25 Most Popular Catholic Blogs by Google Reader Subscribers

(1) What Does the Prayer Really Say?: 4841
(2) Whispers in the Loggia: 4685
(3) Charlotte Was Both: 3053
(4) Conversion Diary: 1817
(5) New Advent Blog: 1429
(6) Creative Minority Report: 1248
(7) Patrick Madrid: 1173
(8) Standing on my Head: 1156
(9) The Hermeneutic of Continuity: 1053
(10) Damian Thompson: 954
(11) Rorate Caeli: 933
(12) The New Liturgical Movement: 892
(13) Ask Sister Mary Martha: 867
(14) Mere Comments: 811
(15) Catholic and Enjoying It!: 796
(16) Ignatius Insight Scoop: 749
(17) By Sun and Candlelight: 712
(18) Catholic Cuisine: 648
(19) The Shrine of the Holy Whapping: 643
(20) Testosterhome: 638
(21) Happy Catholic: 607
(22) The Crescat: 573
(23) Domine, da mihi hanc aquam!: 521
(24) Shower of Roses: 481
(25) Wildflowers and Marbles: 474

See the list of the Top 200 Most Popular Catholic Blogs over at my main website.

For those who are curious, my blog came in #303, which isn’t bad out of over 2,000 blogs considering I’ve only been doing this for a little over a year. But feel free to subscribe to my blog to bump me up.

I have always admired Evangelicals’ passion for evangelization (you must have passion for something if it’s part of your name). I wish all Catholics would desire to share their Faith with their neighbor as much as most Evangelicals do. Evangelicals are also on the forefront when it comes to using modern technology to spread the Gospel. They have pioneered outreaches via television, radio and now the Internet. But it is important to remember that Evangelicals do have a number of errors in their theology, especially when it comes to how one obtains salvation, and these errors can creep into their evangelization work.

Case in point: an iPhone app which “evangelizes” people who don’t speak English. An answer to that whole tower of Babel problem, the GM2:8 app will walk a person through the Gospel in a few short steps in their language, so you can bring someone to Christ just by the touch of a button! Here’s what evangelist Ray Comfort (and Kirk Cameron!) say about it:

The problem, of course, is that just walking a person through a few questions and getting them to make the right responses is not evangelization. It’s quiz-taking. Evangelicals like Comfort and Cameron believe that one is saved simply by making a prayer and that once saved, they are always saved. But that is not biblical Christianity. Christ, in the “Great Commission” told his apostles (and all of us):

Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. (Matthew 28:19-20, emphasis added)

Becoming a Christian, therefore, involves three things:

1) Discipleship: The Christian does not just give an affirmative answer to the question, “Is Jesus Lord?”, he becomes a disciple of Christ, which means that his entire life must revolve around Christ.

2) Baptism: Baptism is the entrance into Christ’s Body, the Church; it is how one becomes a Christian. When the crowds asked Peter how they were to be saved, he didn’t respond “say this prayer and it’s a done deal!” No, he stated, “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). Baptism has always been the normal way in which one becomes a Christian.

3) Obedience: Once a person becomes a disciple of Christ and is baptized, he must live a life of obedience (cf. Romans 1:5). This means following the commandments and living a moral life. It also means obeying those Christ have put in charge of the Church, i.e. the bishops. Obviously, this cannot be done as a one-time activity, but instead involves a re-ordering of one’s entire life.

Kudos to Evangelicals like Comfort and Cameron for wanting to tell people about Jesus and using modern technology to help their efforts. But unfortunately they are hamstrung by bad theology, which ends up leading to really dumb iPhone apps like GM2:8.

Who would have thought that P&G would create one of the most pro-life applications for the new iPad? It’s true:

One of the great things about being pro-life is that we never have to worry about facts getting in the way of our convictions. Science clearly tells us that it is a baby in a mother’s womb, no matter what pro-abortion advocates might claim, and advances in technology are just reconfirming that each day.

One of the remarkable features of the decade of the 1960’s was the wildly optimistic view people held for technology and its ability to make our life better. Commercials abounded that touted the latest technological product that would mean less work, more leisure for the suburban American. Artificial turf was seen as superior to natural grass for ballparks across the country. Children had to be bottle-fed rather than breast-fed because of the wonderful vitamins that man put into the bottles. And of course, The Pill would free women everywhere from nature’s “curse”: bearing children.

The epitome of this messianic view of technology was the television show Star Trek, created at the height of man’s love for artificiality. Much of science-fiction up until this time took a dark view of the future, with aliens invading and robots taking over the world. But Star Trek had a different view: technology would not only not be our downfall, it would be our savior. In the Star Trek world, the advent of faster-than-light warp travel led to the end of poverty, greed, war and apparently Original Sin.

Over the years it has become apparent to almost everyone that modern technology is not, in fact, the savior the 1960’s thought it would be. No one makes a baseball park with artificial turf anymore and no one argues that bottle-milk is superior for a baby over breast-milk. Commercials still tout the time-saving features of the latest gadgets, but no one actually believes that these devices will save any time – they in the end fill it with things we don’t really want to do.

But there is one artificial technology that we still cling to vociferously, refusing to examine any evidence that it might actually be harmful to man. That, of course, is The Pill. When technology impacts something of marginal interest, such as a baseball game, we have no problem analyzing it objectively to see if it is truly beneficial. When it impacts someone we love, such as our baby, we are willing to reject it if the evidence shows it is harmful. But when it impacts our own selfish needs, especially one so powerful as the sexual drive, we refuse to see the evidence right in front of our face.

This is the curse of Original Sin: we want to make ourselves gods, controlling the world around us to make it in our image. We think we can make our own Garden of Eden. But we have found that the artificial things that we make don’t hold a candle to God’s created universe. But we cling to our false, artificial world if it allows us to wallow in our sins. We need to remember that the salvation of this world comes not from technology, but instead through the work of a Carpenter’s son who was nailed to a wooden Cross for our sins, and makes that salvation available to us through such humble (and natural) things like water, bread, and wine.

Pope asks Bloggers to Give Internet a Soul

Every Catholic on the Internet needs to be a witness for Christ in a land filled with rudeness, anger and pornography. A few tips on how to follow the Pope’s request can be found here.

I saw this on Mark Shea’s blog and I couldn’t help but re-post it here:

A well-known rule for using the Internet is that “you shouldn’t post anything on the Internet that you wouldn’t say in person.” I would actually go further. I would say that sometimes you shouldn’t post something on the Internet even if you would say it in person. Over the years I have countless times seen innocent emails or Internet posts lead to stupid arguments due to simple misunderstandings. When you write something, there is no way for the person reading it to see your body language or hear the inflection of your words or recognize your sarcasm. And because most Internet writing is done quickly without a lot of forethought, the words used might not convey exactly what the writer intended.

When it comes to Internet communications, both the writer and the reader have responsibilities:

Writer: Read and re-read your writing before you post it. Try to read it objectively, without the inflections that are in your head. Try to find ways in which it can be misunderstood before you post it.

Reader: Read the writing in the best possible light. Assume the best of the writer. Don’t add your own inflections to the writing, but try to look at it as objectively as possible. Even if you think you know that the writer intended to slam you or your beliefs, first confirm with the writer what he meant before you respond.

For more advice on safely navigating the Internet without losing your soul, see my Rules of Engagement for Catholics on the Internet.

Now this is a great use of the Internet: the Vatican has made all official records from 1865 to 2007 available for free in PDF format.

I can remember just 15 years ago doing research for a paper on Catholic ecumenism from the early 1900’s and spending hours and hours at the library trying to dig up anything I could find. Now it would take me a few minutes and I’d have more than I could ever use!