National Geographic has an interesting profile of Mount Athos, the “Holy Mountain” of Eastern Orthodoxy. Some excerpts:

The holy peninsula of Mount Athos reaches 31 miles out into the Aegean Sea like an appendage struggling to dislocate itself from the secular corpus of northeastern Greece. For the past thousand years or so, a community of Eastern Orthodox monks has dwelled here, purposefully removed from everything except God. They live only to become one with Jesus Christ. Their enclave—crashing waves, dense chestnut forests, the specter of snowy-veined Mount Athos, 6,670 feet high—is the very essence of isolation.

Living in one of the peninsula’s 20 monasteries, dozen cloisters, or hundreds of cells, the monks are detached even from each other, reserving most of their time for prayer and solitude. In their heavy beards and black garb—worn to signify their death to the world—the monks seem to recede into a Byzantine fresco, an ageless brotherhood of ritual, acute simplicity, and constant worship, but also imperfection. There is an awareness, as one elder puts it, that “even on Mount Athos we are humans walking every day on the razor’s edge.”

…after two world wars and communism reduced the monastic population to 1,145 in 1971, the past decades have seen a rebirth. A steady influx of young men—often with college degrees, a number from the former Soviet bloc—has dramatically increased Mount Athos’s ranks to nearly 2,000 monks and novices, while Greece’s entrance into the European Union in 1981 made the peninsula eligible for EU preservation funds.

“There are 2,000 stories here—everyone has their own spiritual walk,” says Father Maximos, whose own walk began in Long Island as a teenage devotee of edgy musical artists like Lou Reed and Leonard Cohen, and who later became a theology professor at Harvard before resigning to “live my life closer to God.”

The following passage worries me, however:

Mount Athos has survived by bending where it must, though never without fretfulness. St. Athanasios, who founded the Megistis Lavras monastery in 963, infuriated the hermits by introducing audacious architecture into an otherwise rustic landscape. Roads and buses, then electricity, then cell phones have all been sources of angst. The latest encroachment is the Internet. A few monasteries have conducted ever so timid forays into cyberspace—ordering spare parts, communicating with lawyers, obtaining scholarly research. “It’s a great danger to be connected to the outside world,” cautions one monk. “Most of the monks weren’t even informed about 9/11.”

Not long ago I was talking to a friend who is a member of a (Catholic) religious order. He told me that they were considering the possibility of having the Internet available on one of their computers in their house. Some of the younger novices need it for their studies. I told him frankly: do everything you can to keep the Internet out of your houses! As I mention in my previous post, it is possible to be contemplative while in the world, but to me the Internet seems completely contrary to the religious life they are trying to lead. Hopefully the introduction of many of these modern conveniences to Mt. Athos will not harm their spiritual life.

I’m still trying to decide if I think this is funny or offensive:

If you are looking for the latest news about Hollywood celebrities, this blog is the last place to look. Frankly, I don’t understand our national obsession regarding the comings and goings and views of movie and TV actors. This obsession has infected Catholics as well: we too often obsess about whether or not this or that actor is Catholic, what actors think about Catholicism and whether or not a movie or show is pro- or anti-Catholic. We place an incredibly inordinate amount of importance on people whose main talent is playing make-believe.

That being said, I just read an interesting interview with actor Jim Caviezel regarding his latest endeavor (a “re-creation” of the 1960s show The Prisoner). Caviezel appears to be a fine chap and of course I enjoyed his work in The Passion of the Christ. But what struck me most about this interview was the following statement he made (emphasis added):

[I]t reflects on the economy, on the world lack of trust. People become so disconnected. There was a time when people would sit down and have dinner together and they would say, “How are you,” and they would have to deal with one another. They don’t have to deal with each other anymore. They deal with their iPods and their Blackberries. And they’re missing a lot of opportunities here, watching people that they could have met earlier who would have changed their life, that’s gone because their head is somewhere else. I’m in Manhattan, New York, and walking across the street with your Blackberry is kind of a death wish, don’t you think?

I find Caviezel’s connection between trust and technology to be very insightful, and I’m impressed that someone who most likely lives surrounded by this type of technology could see this so clearly.

Technology has supposedly “connected” us in new ways, but we are actually more disconnected than ever before. We don’t know our neighbors and we often don’t even know the members of our own family as we keep our eyes on our gadgets instead of on other people. Yet Christ calls us to make deep connections with others so that we can truly share God’s love with them. This can only be done on a limited level on the Internet, and it can never replace the deep connectivity that comes from true interpersonal relationships.

appear to be tomorrow’s cigarettes.

I strictly control the amount of time my children spend on the Internet, and I also strictly control what sites they can access and from whom my oldest daughter (the only one with email) can receive email (three cheers for Mac’s great parental control features!). I think this is just part of being a good parent. There is no question in my mind that, along with so much of the garbage to be found on the Internet, just using it can easily become addictive, especially for someone who is not yet mature enough to handle it.

However, in China, they seem to have taken things too far: they have “Internet boot camps” in which physical means such as beatings and electro-shock therapy are used to cure teenagers of Internet addiction. Fortunately, the government there has stepped in to ban these practices after a teenage died at such a bootcamp.

I recently read an interesting article on the rise of “online churches”. Many Evangelicals are building “churches” on the Internet, allowing people to come together for services very similar to Protestant church services. This has been a growing trend, and some Evangelicals are even replacing their participation in physical churches with online “churches”.

The article also mentions that Catholics and Orthodox are creating many online spaces for believers to “gather” together. However, neither of these two Churches will ever have an “online church”. Why? Because, simply put, “the Eucharist makes the Church”. With no Eucharist, you have no Church (and the reverse is true as well: without a Church you have no Eucharist). And since the Eucharist is, and always will be, a physical phenomenon, it is impossible to have a true “church” online.

The Church is not simply a gathering of like-minded believers, like the Elks club or the Rotary club. It is the Body of Christ and it is mystically united in the Eucharist, not simply in a common belief (in fact, our common belief is a fruit of the Eucharist). This great Sacrament is the sacrament of unity and it binds together diverse people into one physical body. As St. Paul wrote in today’s first reading, “We, though many, are one Body in Christ, and individually parts of one another.” (Romans 12:5). This unity is humanly impossible, but it is possible in the divine economy.

Catholics should have a presence in the online world and through that presence we can and should bring people closer to Christ. However, we are not a “church” online; our churches can only be found where there is the Eucharist.

Seen in an Orthodox church:

(Source)

Translation: “Not turned-off cell phones in church – 100 prostrations”

I think we need something similar in our Catholic churches – perhaps 100 genuflections?

I have been involved with Internet discussions and apologetics for a very long time, at least in Internet terms. I remember debating a man from the Netherlands via email about Catholic theology in 1992, before I was even officially received into the Catholic Church. Considering “Internet years” are somewhat like dog years, I figure that’s 119 years of online debates and discussions (and it even feels like more sometimes). Over that time I have developed some rules of engagement for Internet apostolate that might be helpful for others.

1) Always remember the superiority of the real world over the virtual world.

If you are spending more time interacting with people over the Internet than you do in the real world, then you need to seriously curtail your online activity. God made us physical beings and we cannot replace physical interaction with virtual interaction. It’s just not the same.

2) Your salvation is more important than your involvement on the Internet.

If frequenting a blog or forum disturbs your peace and makes you anxious, uncharitable and/or unkind to those around you, you should simply stop going to that blog or forum. I have had to abandon certain forums and blogs because I found myself too upset with those I encountered there. It is better to simply walk away.

3) Don’t ever say anything on the Internet that you wouldn’t say in person.

This is a pretty common suggestion, but it is very true. If you wouldn’t call someone a putz to their face, don’t call them that online (and if you would call them that to their face, perhaps you need to see your confessor).

4) Don’t write anything in anger.

If you write a post or comment on a blog or on a forum in anger, be sure to preview it before posting. Then delete it.

5) Don’t stereotype people.

It is very easy to stereotype the people we “meet” over the Internet. If someone says he likes the Traditional Latin Mass, don’t assume that he is an “angry Traditionalist” who rejects Vatican II completely. If someone says something supportive of Rush Limbaugh, don’t assume she supports everything he espouses. The truth is that most people don’t fall into nice and neat categories. I remember encountering a person online who was devoted to the Latin Mass but also supported liberal Democrat politicians. Remember to just debate actual arguments raised, not positions you assume the person also holds. Don’t think you actually know people you only encounter online. You don’t.

6) Take at least one day off a week from the Internet.

Preferably Sunday. Remember that man was not made for the Internet, but the Internet for man. If you feel you need to be on the Internet every day, then you are showing signs of a dangerous addiction. This is unhealthy, even if the sites you go to are not harmful themselves.

7) Always assume the good intentions of others.

If someone writes something that could possibly be interpreted multiple ways, assume the best interpretation. I have seen countless examples of someone making a point, someone else misinterpreting it and attacking it, then a whole discussion ensues before the original poster returns to say that he never meant what he was accused of saying. Writing is a difficult task, and often what we write isn’t exactly what we mean. Give people the same benefit of the doubt that you want to be given.

8) Remember who the real Enemy is.

It’s not some heterodox blogger or pro-abortion advocate. It’s Satan. Those who do things that support his reign are slaves of Satan, and our duty is not to try to defeat them, but emancipate them and help them become sons of the True King. Yes, we must resist evil in all its forms, but those who advocate for evil need to be converted, not conquered.

9) Remember that God resists the proud.

Even when they are right. On the Internet you encounter people at all stage of their spiritual life. Many don’t know the first thing about the Faith yet still expound upon it. It is easy to look upon them like the Pharisee did to the Publican. Instead of quickly jumping in to tell them how they are wrong, first say a prayer for them and then gently lead them to a fuller understanding of the truth. I can guarantee that a prideful retort will do nothing other than turn them more away from an orthodox understanding of the Faith.

10) Don’t just go to Catholic sites.

Part of the history of Catholics in America is that we have often lived in ghettos, completely excluded from those outside the Church. It sometimes feels like we are returning to that on the Internet. We only go to Catholic sites and Catholic blogs and Catholic forums (and usually only those we agree with) and it gives us an unbalanced view of the world. I spent over four years as the only Catholic at a Protestant apologetics forum, and it was a very fruitful experience for me. Not only was I able to defend and explain the Catholic Faith to many who would never hear about it, I also learned a great deal from the Protestants at the site and honed my apologetic abilities. Obviously we shouldn’t visit immoral sites that might lead us into the near occasion of sin, but we should be salt and light on the Internet and bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all corners of the virtual world.

If you have any helpful rules of engagement you use, feel free to leave them in the comments!

I have four daughters, the oldest of whom will soon be entering her teenage years. In five years, three of my daughters will be teenagers at the same time! Unlike many parents, I am actually looking forward to their teen years, as it is a wonderful time in which they are becoming adults and hopefully growing in their spiritual lives.

However, I am under no illusions about the dangers of the teenage years in our society. Over the past fifty years, our culture has decided that during the teen years it is acceptable to behave in beastly ways without consequences. This especially applies to the area of sexual relations; it is assumed by many people that teens are just going to do “it”, so all a parent should worry about is protecting them from physical harm (with no regard for the psychological/spiritual/mental harm of pre-marital relations). We see this in the push for teenagers to learn about contraception, while ignoring the possibility of abstinence.

But this mindset has also entered the realm of vaccinations. There is now a standard vaccination pushed on pre-teen girls which is to protect against HPV – Human Papillomavirus. This is a sexually transmitted infection, and the assumption of the vaccination is that the vast majority of girls will be sexually active in their teen years, so they should be vaccinated to protect themselves against HPV. My wife has been adamant that we will not get this vaccination for our girls, and I found a great article called “Girls and Gardasil: The Protection Game” which details the reasons not to give it to our daughters. It really is worthwhile to read the whole article and it is difficult to just excerpt parts of it. But here are some of the opening paragraphs:

Most people would agree to vaccinating their children against infections that are generalised within the community so that everyone stands an equal chance of catching them – whooping cough and measles, for instance. But there is a new class of diseases that are increasingly being targeted by vaccine developers: sexually transmitted diseases such as Hepatitis B and cervical cancer, and this is where parents need to consider more carefully whether to immunise or not…

The argument advanced for vaccinating schoolchildren is that most will be sexually active by the time they are eighteen and will have caught the virus by their early twenties; therefore, to be effective, the vaccine has to be administered prior to sexual debut. While this may appeal to parents with a pragmatic approach to life’s challenges, parents who are looking at the overall formation of their children need to take other factors into consideration. They have probably already had conversations with their children about the importance of exercising sexual responsibility prior to marriage and, with luck, they have been demonstrating steadfast fidelity and mutual support in their own marriage.

Deciding that they need to vaccinate a daughter against a sexually transmitted disease seems like a vote of no confidence in the child’s ability to display sexual self-control or choose a like-minded husband. It is like saying to a child, “Eat healthy foods, don’t overindulge and you won’t become obese … but, just in case you can’t control yourself, we’ll give you gastric banding surgery in advance.” Child psychologists are agreed that children are good at spotting when parents give them contradictory messages – and may later use them as justification for their behaviour. A school-based programme adds a social message that early sexual intercourse is allowed, as long as one uses “protection”…

The question we should be asking is, do we base our family decisions on worst case scenarios or do we try to support our children by building a “best practice” ethos within the family? And, importantly, using worst case scenarios to justify vaccination against STDs does not take into account the other ways of preventing cervical cancer nor the possible side-effects of vaccination.

Do read the whole article, and if you have pre-teen girls think carefully when you are asked to give them this vaccination. Are you possibly straining a gnat but swallowing a camel?

Regular followers of this blog know that I have no love for Twitter; you can simply search on “Twitter” in this blog to see why I am not a fan of the micro-blogging service. I admit it is a quixotic campaign and a lonely one as well. But three guesses on what I thought when I saw this headline:

‘Twitter Bible’ Converts Scripture into Mini Messages

That’s right: a “Twitter Bible”. Here are some sample tweets:

• “40 days without food. Satan doing a full court temptation press. Does he really think he can win?”
• “Just healed ten lepers, only one came back to thank me. Nothing worse than ungrateful ex-lepers”
• “5 loaves + 2 fishes x the power of God = Fish and Chips for 5,000! Thanks for your lunch kid!”
• “Watching my disciples as I ascend to heaven. They look helpless. Will send Holy Spirit soon.”

Our culture continues its march to a 100% ADD society, and this “Twitter Bible” seems to be in keeping with that trend. Next thing you know someone will put the Summa in Twitter form…

Yesterday my house lost power for seven hours. As someone who works on a computer from home, this had an obvious impact on my schedule. But I was amazed at how much of an impact this had on me – I kept thinking of non-work-related things to do, but I kept realizing I couldn’t do them without power. “I think I’ll pay the bills…oops, that is on the computer.” “I’ll fix that leak in the washer…oops, the washer is in a room in the basement with no windows, so I can’t see what I am doing.” Electricity runs through almost everything I do. If I’m not careful, I may soon end up looking like this.

My experience without power reminded me of a book I read a few years ago, Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology by Eric Brende. A graduate student studying technology’s impact on society, Brende decided to spend a year (with his new wife) living with a strict Amish community which didn’t use any electricity. He chronicles how these people live without what we would consider essentials, and in the end, he decides that in many ways, they are “better off”.

Most people think that the Amish simply reject all technology. This is not the case. The underlying rule for Amish communities is that they do not accept new technology blindly. Instead, as a community they evaluate each new technology and determine if it will have a positive or negative impact on their community. Each Amish community makes this decision on their own, and thus you will have a wide variety of acceptance of technologies between communities. The community Brende joined for a year took a very strict line: no electricity at all. This means no appliances, no telephones, and of course no television or internet. Brende discovers that the absence of many of these modern conveniences actually leads to a strengthening of community bonds. Without a telephone (or email or text messages or facebook, etc.), people were actually more connected to each other, not less. This is because they would spend time in each other’s physical company, instead of just having “drive-by” contact with the people they knew. Furthermore, without entertainment options like televisions to occupy their time, they spent more time doing things with other people for recreation. In other words, they put people above things. (Likewise, without a TV to tell them that they could only be happy as a sex-crazed New Yorker, they were completely content with their choices in life).

I do not necessarily agree with all the specific decisions that Amish communities make in regard to technology – although I strongly support their right to make those choices. But I came away from reading Better Off with the conviction that each family should consciously make their own decisions about what technology they will embrace in their particular situations. We are not all required to have televisions or cell phones or even computers to be happy. None of those things are needed for sainthood, the epitome of happiness. If any technology is hindering our ability to draw closer to God, our family or others, then it simply not worth it. We would be better off without it.

Why is it that when I read this, it makes me think of this?

…because you are too busy staring at the boob tube:

Source.

Every once in a while I wonder if my decision not to have a TV is preventing me from experiencing quality shows that uplift the spirit and stimulate the mind.

Then I see this:

and after a few convulsions into a barf bag I go back to my blissfully TV-free existence.