There is no denying that the Internet has had a tremendous impact on our Movement. I asked numerous people about how they found the Autocephalous Catholic Movement before the Internet. Usually the response was "because of a pamphlet" or "through a brochure" or, frequently, "in the Handbook of Denominations." So people entered often based on their first contact. This can be challenging because you don't get to know the many options available or how well you will mesh with your new faith entity.
My first contact with this Movement was through the Internet. In the year 2000, I was searching for Traditional Catholicism on AltaVista. I came across numerous sites about groups independent of Rome. This was largely also because of Fr. Begonja's pioneering work at Ind-Movement.org. Through my searches I found a group which was liturgically traditional while pastoral in its outreach. It was in this tradition that I found my home and was ordained. Although I have been members of several jurisdictions my dedication to this branch of Autocephalous Catholicism has been unwavering.
I have also been fortunate to meet some of my dearest friends through the Internet. It started through email groups and then through social media. Now it is often through text messages and phone calls. But I have found people who share my beliefs, ethics, and values. Of course I have also found people with whom I do not agree, cannot understand, and do not want to know. But, overall, this connectedness has been a blessing. This unique world can be isolating. I have frequently been told we are "fake Catholics" or told "we don't know what to tell our family about our involvement in this church." So having someone else with whom to experience it is a joy. Some groups have used this interconnectedness to conduct weekly prayer calls, there are now apps whch keep people better connected, and we can share information and resources which were never available before.
There is also an unexpected consequence. There is a complete loss of anonymity. As I have perused the historical files of our Movement I have seen pages and pages of clergy or churches belonging to different groups. Yet, because of difficulty traveling and without Google Maps, leaders of jurisdictions had no guarantee that churches even existed. Or, hopefully not sinisterly, if clergy were living up to their ordination promises. Or even what their clergy believed or preached.
For example, at least several times in our history there have been bishops who functioned in our Movement as well as the mainstream. One bishop in particular, consecrated by Archbishop Carfora, was a Congregationalist minister. This begs the question--what did Archbishop Carfora know? I have also found clergy who are concurrently members of several jurisdictions, or hold beliefs different from their jurisdiction, or have personal lives which conflict with their jurisdiction's stated requirements. Yet before the Internet there was little way to find out about it. Usually information was conveyed, sadly, via vindictive clergy. Or perhaps a bulletin would arrive in a superior's hands. I think, though, that this lack of contact preserved a lot of our churches at least in outward unity.
Now it is much more difficult to hide our lives. Google and Facebook know everything about us. Our photos are everywhere. It is essential for our ministries to have a presence on the Internet. Today if Fr Jim is also serving another group as Tau Shammalamadingdong (in Ecclesia) it's visible. Or if they say something scandalous in a homily a parishioner can email their superior. There are numerable other instances of interconnectedness. What this has done is force jurisdictional leaders to address when there are issues they need to confront.
The result has been positive, negative, and unintended. Positively, people with predatory histories are easier to prevent from entering our groups. Negatively, it has perhaps made us more critical of each other. Because we know more about each other we can use it in our all too human attempts to compare ourselves and deride each other. An unintended consequence, I think, is that it has made us much more homogenous. This can be in an effort to emulate mainstream churches. However, we know that every church is a mixture of unofficial beliefs because every church is a mixture of people (except some of the Orthodox who get specific about everything). Or it is because we can find a jurisdiction which believes that you must use the Pre-Pius X Psalter, only wear shoes on Monday, and say Mass in Esperanto. Even if there are only 2 of you.
There is also an unexpected consequence. There is a complete loss of anonymity. As I have perused the historical files of our Movement I have seen pages and pages of clergy or churches belonging to different groups. Yet, because of difficulty traveling and without Google Maps, leaders of jurisdictions had no guarantee that churches even existed. Or, hopefully not sinisterly, if clergy were living up to their ordination promises. Or even what their clergy believed or preached.
For example, at least several times in our history there have been bishops who functioned in our Movement as well as the mainstream. One bishop in particular, consecrated by Archbishop Carfora, was a Congregationalist minister. This begs the question--what did Archbishop Carfora know? I have also found clergy who are concurrently members of several jurisdictions, or hold beliefs different from their jurisdiction, or have personal lives which conflict with their jurisdiction's stated requirements. Yet before the Internet there was little way to find out about it. Usually information was conveyed, sadly, via vindictive clergy. Or perhaps a bulletin would arrive in a superior's hands. I think, though, that this lack of contact preserved a lot of our churches at least in outward unity.
Now it is much more difficult to hide our lives. Google and Facebook know everything about us. Our photos are everywhere. It is essential for our ministries to have a presence on the Internet. Today if Fr Jim is also serving another group as Tau Shammalamadingdong (in Ecclesia) it's visible. Or if they say something scandalous in a homily a parishioner can email their superior. There are numerable other instances of interconnectedness. What this has done is force jurisdictional leaders to address when there are issues they need to confront.
The result has been positive, negative, and unintended. Positively, people with predatory histories are easier to prevent from entering our groups. Negatively, it has perhaps made us more critical of each other. Because we know more about each other we can use it in our all too human attempts to compare ourselves and deride each other. An unintended consequence, I think, is that it has made us much more homogenous. This can be in an effort to emulate mainstream churches. However, we know that every church is a mixture of unofficial beliefs because every church is a mixture of people (except some of the Orthodox who get specific about everything). Or it is because we can find a jurisdiction which believes that you must use the Pre-Pius X Psalter, only wear shoes on Monday, and say Mass in Esperanto. Even if there are only 2 of you.
Yet despite the Internet (and its plusses and minuses) I have found that nothing compares to in-person conversation. Despite all our advances in technology it is still sharing over the dinner table, talking on worn-out chairs, and through being together that we learn to trust each other and give of ourselves. So, perhaps we're still not that different than our forbearers who didn't have the World Wide Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment