-
“Today's revolution in social communications involves a fundamental reshaping
of the elements by which people comprehend the world about them, and verify and
express what they comprehend. The constant availability of images and ideas, and
their rapid transmission even from continent to continent, have profound consequences,
both positive and negative, for the psychological, moral and social development
of persons, the structure and functioning of societies, intercultural communications,
and the perception and transmission of values, world views, ideologies, and religious
beliefs”.1
The truth of these words has become clearer than ever during the past decade. Today
it takes no great stretch of the imagination to envisage the earth as an interconnected
globe humming with electronic transmissions—a chattering planet nestled in the provident
silence of space. The ethical question is whether this is contributing to authentic
human development and helping individuals and peoples to be true to their transcendent
destiny.
And, of course, in many ways the answer is yes. The new media are powerful tools
for education and cultural enrichment, for commercial activity and political participation,
for intercultural dialogue and understanding; and, as we point out in the document
that accompanies this one,2 they also can serve the cause of religion.
Yet this coin has another side. Media of communication that can be used for the
good of persons and communities can be used to exploit, manipulate, dominate, and
corrupt.
-
The Internet is the latest and in many respects most powerful in a line of media—telegraph,
telephone, radio, television—that for many people have progressively eliminated
time and space as obstacles to communication during the last century and a half.
It has enormous consequences for individuals, nations, and the world.
In this document we wish to set out a Catholic view of the Internet, as a starting
point for the Church's participation in dialogue with other sectors of society,
especially other religious groups, concerning the development and use of this marvelous
technological instrument. The Internet is being put to many good uses now, with
the promise of many more, but much harm also can be done by its improper use. Which
it will be, good or harm, is largely a matter of choice—a choice to whose making
the Church brings two elements of great importance: her commitment to the dignity
of the human person and her long tradition of moral wisdom.3
-
As with other media, the person and the community of persons are central to ethical
evaluation of the Internet. In regard to the message communicated, the process of
communicating, and structural and systemic issues in communication, “the fundamental
ethical principle is this: The human person and the human community are the end
and measure of the use of the media of social communication; communication should
be by persons to persons for the integral development of persons”.4
The common good—“the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as
groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily”5—provides
a second basic principle for ethical evaluation of social communications. It should
be understood inclusively, as the whole of those worthy purposes to which a community's
members commit themselves together and which the community exists to realize and
sustain. The good of individuals depends upon the common good of their communities.
The virtue disposing people to protect and promote the common good is solidarity.
It is not a feeling of “vague compassion or shallow distress” at other people's
troubles, but “a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common
good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all
really responsible for all”.6 Especially today solidarity has a clear,
strong international dimension; it is correct to speak of, and obligatory to work
for, the international common good.
-
The international common good, the virtue of solidarity, the revolution in communications
media and information technology, and the Internet are all relevant to the process
of globalization.
To a great extent, the new technology drives and supports globalization, creating
a situation in which “commerce and communications are no longer bound by borders”.7
This has immensely important consequences. Globalization can increase wealth and
foster development; it offers advantages like “efficiency and increased production...
greater unity among peoples... a better service to the human family”.8
But the benefits have not been evenly shared up to now. Some individuals, commercial
enterprises, and countries have grown enormously wealthy while others have fallen
behind. Whole nations have been excluded almost entirely from the process, denied
a place in the new world taking shape. “Globalization, which has profoundly transformed
economic systems by creating unexpected possibilities of growth, has also resulted
in many people being relegated to the side of the road: unemployment in the more
developed countries and extreme poverty in too many countries of the Southern Hemisphere
continue to hold millions of women and men back from progress and prosperity”.9
It is by no means clear that even societies that have entered into the globalization
process have done so entirely as a matter of free, informed choice. Instead, “many
people, especially the disadvantaged, experience this as something that has been
forced upon them rather than as a process in which they can actively participate”.10
In many parts of the world, globalization is spurring rapid, sweeping social change.
This is not just an economic process but a cultural one, with both positive and
negative aspects. “Those who are subjected to it often see globalization as a destructive
flood threatening the social norms which had protected them and the cultural points
of reference which had given them direction in life....Changes in technology and
work relationships are moving too quickly for cultures to respond”.11
-
One major consequence of the deregulation of recent years has been a shift of
power from national states to transnational corporations. It is important that these
corporations be encouraged and helped to use their power for the good of humanity;
and this points to a need for more communication and dialogue between them and concerned
bodies like the Church.
Use of the new information technology and the Internet needs to be informed and
guided by a resolute commitment to the practice of solidarity in the service of
the common good, within and among nations. This technology can be a means for solving
human problems, promoting the integral development of persons, creating a world
governed by justice and peace and love. Now, even more than when the Pastoral Instruction
on the Means of Social Communications
Communio et Progressio made the point more than thirty years ago, media
have the ability to make every person everywhere “a partner in the business of the
human race”.12
This is an astonishing vision. The Internet can help make it real—for individuals,
groups, nations, and the human race—only if it is used in light of clear, sound
ethical principles, especially the virtue of solidarity. To do so will be to everyone's
advantage, for “we know one thing today more than in the past: we will never be
happy and at peace without one another, much less if some are against others”.13
This will be an expression of that spirituality of communion which implies “the
ability to see what is positive in others, to welcome it and prize it as a gift
from God,” along with the ability “to ‘make room' for our brothers and sisters,
bearing ‘each other's burdens' (Gal. 6, 2) and resisting the selfish temptations
which constantly beset us”.14
-
The spread of the Internet also raises a number of other ethical questions about
matters like privacy, the security and confidentiality of data, copyright and intellectual
property law, pornography, hate sites, the dissemination of rumor and character
assassination under the guise of news, and much else. We shall speak briefly about
some of these things below, while recognizing that they call for continued analysis
and discussion by all concerned parties. Fundamentally, though, we do not view the
Internet only as a source of problems; we see it as a source of benefits to the
human race. But the benefits can be fully realized only if the problems are solved.
II
ABOUT THE INTERNET
-
The Internet has a number of striking features. It is instantaneous, immediate,
worldwide, decentralized, interactive, endlessly expandable in contents and outreach,
flexible and adaptable to a remarkable degree. It is egalitarian, in the sense that
anyone with the necessary equipment and modest technical skill can be an active
presence in cyberspace, declare his or her message to the world, and demand a hearing.
It allows individuals to indulge in anonymity, role-playing, and fantasizing and
also to enter into community with others and engage in sharing. According to users'
tastes, it lends itself equally well to active participation and to passive absorption
into “a narcissistic, self-referential world of stimuli with near-narcotic effects”.15
It can be used to break down the isolation of individuals and groups or to deepen
it.
-
The technological configuration underlying the Internet has a considerable bearing
on its ethical aspects: People have tended to use it according to the way it was
designed, and to design it to suit that kind of use. This ‘new' system in fact dates
back to the cold war years of the 1960s, when it was intended to foil nuclear attack
by creating a decentralized network of computers holding vital data. Decentralization
was the key to the scheme, since in this way, so it was reasoned, the loss of one
or even many computers would not mean the loss of the data.
An idealistic vision of the free exchange of information and ideas has played a
praiseworthy part in the development of the Internet. Yet its decentralized configuration
and the similarly decentralized design of the World Wide Web of the late 1980s also
proved to be congenial to a mindset opposed to anything smacking of legitimate regulation
for public responsibility. An exaggerated individualism regarding the Internet thus
emerged. Here, it was said, was a new realm, the marvelous land of cyberspace, where
every sort of expression was allowed and the only law was total individual liberty
to do as one pleased. Of course this meant that the only community whose rights
and interests would be truly recognized in cyberspace was the community of radical
libertarians. This way of thinking remains influential in some circles, supported
by familiar libertarian arguments also used to defend pornography and violence in
the media generally.16
Although radical individualists and entrepreneurs obviously are two very different
groups, there is a convergence of interests between those who want the Internet
to be a place for very nearly every kind of expression, no matter how vile and destructive,
and those who want it to be a vehicle of untrammeled commercial activity on a neo-liberal
model that “considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters, to
the detriment of the dignity of and the respect due to individuals and peoples”.17
-
The explosion of information technology has increased the communication capabilities
of some favored individuals and groups many times over. The Internet can serve people
in their responsible use of freedom and democracy, expand the range of choices available
in diverse spheres of life, broaden educational and cultural horizons, break down
divisions, promote human development in a multitude of ways. “The free flow of images
and speech on a global scale is transforming not only political and economic relations
between peoples, but even our understanding of the world. It opens up a range of
hitherto unthinkable possibilities”.18 When based upon shared values
rooted in the nature of the person, the intercultural dialogue made possible by
the Internet and other media of social communication can be “a privileged means
for building the civilization of love”.19
But that is not the whole story. “Paradoxically, the very forces which can lead
to better communication can also lead to increasing self-centeredness and alienation”.20
The Internet can unite people, but it also can divide them, both as individuals
and as mutually suspicious groups separated by ideology, politics, possessions,
race and ethnicity, intergenerational differences, and even religion. Already it
has been used in aggressive ways, almost as a weapon of war, and people speak of
the danger of ‘cyber-terrorism.' It would be painfully ironic if this instrument
of communication with so much potential for bringing people together reverted to
its origins in the cold war and became an arena of international conflict.
III
SOME AREAS OF CONCERN
-
A number of concerns about the Internet are implicit in what has been said so
far.
One of the most important of these involves what today is called the digital divide—a
form of discrimination dividing the rich from the poor, both within and among nations,
on the basis of access, or lack of access, to the new information technology. In
this sense it is an updated version of an older gap between the ‘information rich'
and ‘information poor'.
The expression ‘digital divide' underlines the fact that individuals, groups, and
nations must have access to the new technology in order to share in the promised
benefits of globalization and development and not fall further behind. It is imperative
“that the gap between the beneficiaries of the new means of information and expression
and those who do not have access to them...not become another intractable source
of inequity and discrimination”.21 Ways need to be found to make the
Internet accessible to less advantaged groups, either directly or at least by linking
it with lower-cost traditional media. Cyberspace ought to be a resource of comprehensive
information and services available without charge to all, and in a wide range of
languages. Public institutions have a particular responsibility to establish and
maintain sites of this kind.
As the new global economy takes shape, the Church is concerned “that the winner
in this process will be humanity as a whole” and not just “a wealthy elite that
controls science, technology and the planet's resources”; this is to say that the
Church desires “a globalization which will be at the service of the whole person
and of all people”.22
In this connection it should be borne in mind that the causes and consequences of
the divide are not only economic but also technical, social, and cultural. So, for
example, another Internet ‘divide' operates to the disadvantage of women, and it,
too, needs to be closed.
-
We are particularly concerned about the cultural dimensions of what is now taking
place. Precisely as powerful tools of the globalization process, the new information
technology and the Internet transmit and help instill a set of cultural values—ways
of thinking about social relationships, family, religion, the human condition—whose
novelty and glamour can challenge and overwhelm traditional cultures.
Intercultural dialogue and enrichment are of course highly desirable. Indeed, “dialogue
between cultures is especially needed today because of the impact of new communications
technology on the lives of individuals and peoples”.23 But this has to
be a two-way street. Cultures have much to learn from one another, and merely imposing
the world view, values, and even language of one culture upon another is not dialogue
but cultural imperialism.
Cultural domination is an especially serious problem when a dominant culture carries
false values inimical to the true good of individuals and groups. As matters stand,
the Internet, along with the other media of social communication, is transmitting
the value-laden message of Western secular culture to people and societies in many
cases ill-prepared to evaluate and cope with it. Many serious problems result—for
example, in regard to marriage and family life, which are experiencing “a radical
and widespread crisis”24 in many parts of the world.
Cultural sensitivity and respect for other people's values and beliefs are imperative
in these circumstances. Intercultural dialogue that “protects the distinctiveness
of cultures as historical and creative expressions of the underlying unity of the
human family, and...sustains understanding and communion between them” 25
is needed to build and maintain the sense of international solidarity.
-
The question of freedom of expression on the Internet is similarly complex and
gives rise to another set of concerns.
We strongly support freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas. Freedom
to seek and know the truth is a fundamental human right,26 and freedom
of expression is a cornerstone of democracy. “Man, provided he respects the moral
order and the common interest, is entitled to seek after truth, express and make
known his opinions...he ought to be truthfully informed about matters of public
interest”.27 And public opinion, “an essential expression of human nature
organized in society,” absolutely requires “freedom to express ideas and attitudes”.28
In light of these requirements of the common good, we deplore attempts by public
authorities to block access to information—on the Internet or in other media of
social communication—because they find it threatening or embarrassing to them, to
manipulate the public by propaganda and disinformation, or to impede legitimate
freedom of expression and opinion. Authoritarian regimes are by far the worst offenders
in this regard; but the problem also exists in liberal democracies, where access
to media for political expression often depends on wealth, and politicians and their
advisors violate truthfulness and fairness by misrepresenting opponents and shrinking
issues to sound-bite dimensions.
-
In this new environment, journalism is undergoing profound changes. The combination
of new technologies and globalization has “increased the powers of the media, but
has also made them more liable to ideological and commercial pressures”,29
and this is true of journalism as well.
The Internet is a highly effective instrument for bringing news and information
rapidly to people. But the economic competitiveness and round-the-clock nature of
Internet journalism also contribute to sensationalism and rumor-mongering, to a
merging of news, advertising, and entertainment, and to an apparent decline in serious
reporting and commentary. Honest journalism is essential to the common good of nations
and the international community. Problems now visible in the practice of journalism
on the Internet call for speedy correcting by journalists themselves.
The sheer overwhelming quantity of information on the Internet, much of it unevaluated
as to accuracy and relevance, is a problem for many. But we also are concerned lest
people make use of the medium's technological capacity for customizing information
simply to raise electronic barriers against unfamiliar ideas. That would be an unhealthy
development in a pluralistic world where people need to grow in mutual understanding.
While Internet users have a duty to be selective and self-disciplined, that should
not be carried to the extreme of walling themselves off from others. The medium's
implications for psychological development and health likewise need continued study,
including the possibility that prolonged immersion in the virtual world of cyberspace
may be damaging to some. Although there are many advantages in the capacity technology
gives people to “assemble packages of information and services uniquely designed
for them”, this also “raises an inescapable question: Will the audience of the future
be a multitude of audiences of one?...What would become of solidarity—what would
become of love—in a world like that?” 30
-
Standing alongside issues that have to do with freedom of expression, the integrity
and accuracy of news, and the sharing of ideas and information, is another set of
concerns generated by libertarianism. The ideology of radical libertarianism is
both mistaken and harmful—not least, to legitimate free expression in the service
of truth. The error lies in exalting freedom “to such an extent that it becomes
an absolute, which would then be the source of values....In this way the inescapable
claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity
and ‘being at peace with oneself”'.31 There is no room for authentic
community, the common good, and solidarity in this way of thinking.
IV
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
-
As we have seen, the virtue of solidarity is the measure of the Internet's service
of the common good. It is the common good that supplies the context for considering
the ethical question: “Are the media being used for good or evil?” 32
Many individuals and groups share responsibility in this matter—for example, the
transnational corporations of which we spoke above. All users of the Internet are
obliged to use it in an informed, disciplined way, for morally good purposes; parents
should guide and supervise children's use.33 Schools and other educational
institutions and programs for children and adults should provide training in discerning
use of the Internet as part of a comprehensive media education including not just
training in technical skills—‘computer literacy' and the like—but a capacity for
informed, discerning evaluation of content. Those whose decisions and actions contribute
to shaping the structure and contents of the Internet have an especially serious
duty to practice solidarity in the service of the common good.
-
Prior censorship by government should be avoided; “censorship...should only
be used in the very last extremity”.34 But the Internet is no more exempt
than other media from reasonable laws against hate speech, libel, fraud, child pornography
and pornography in general, and other offenses. Criminal behavior in other contexts
is criminal behavior in cyberspace, and the civil authorities have a duty and a
right to enforce such laws. New regulations also may be needed to deal with special
‘Internet' crimes like the dissemination of computer viruses, the theft of personal
data stored on hard disks, and the like.
Regulation of the Internet is desirable, and in principle industry self-regulation
is best. “The solution to problems arising from unregulated commercialization and
privatization does not lie in state control of media but in more regulation according
to criteria of public service and in greater public accountability”.35
Industry codes of ethics can play a useful role, provided they are seriously intended,
involve representatives of the public in their formulation and enforcement, and,
along with giving encouragement to responsible communicators, carry appropriate
penalties for violations, including public censure.36 Circumstances sometimes
may require state intervention: for example, by setting up media advisory boards
representing the range of opinion in the community.37
-
The Internet's transnational, boundary-bridging character and its role in globalization
require international cooperation in setting standards and establishing mechanisms
to promote and protect the international common good.38 In regard to
media technology, as in regard to much else, “there is a pressing need for equity
at the international level”.39 Determined action in the private and public
sectors is needed to close and eventually eliminate the digital divide.
Many difficult Internet-related questions call for international consensus: for
example, how to guarantee the privacy of law-abiding individuals and groups without
keeping law enforcement and security officials from exercising surveillance over
criminals and terrorists; how to protect copyright and intellectual property rights
without limiting access to material in the public domain—and how to define the ‘public
domain' itself; how to establish and maintain broad-based Internet repositories
of information freely available to all Internet users in a variety of languages;
how to protect women's rights in regard to Internet access and other aspects of
the new information technology. In particular, the question of how to close the
digital divide between the information rich and the information poor requires urgent
attention in its technical, educational, and cultural aspects.
There is today a “growing sense of international solidarity” that offers the United
Nations system in particular “a unique opportunity to contribute to the globalization
of solidarity by serving as a meeting place for states and civil society and as
a convergence of the varied interests and needs...Cooperation between international
agencies and nongovernmental organizations will help to ensure that the interests
of states—legitimate though they may be—and of the different groups within them,
will not be invoked or defended at the expense of the interests or rights of other
peoples, especially the less fortunate”.40 In this connection we hope
that the World Summit of the Information Society scheduled to take place in 2003
will make a positive contribution to the discussion of these matters.
-
As we pointed out above, a companion document to this one called
The Church and Internet speaks specifically about the Church's use of
the Internet and the Internet's role in the life of the Church. Here we wish only
to emphasize that the Catholic Church, along with other religious bodies, should
have a visible, active presence on the Internet and be a partner in the public dialogue
about its development. “The Church does not presume to dictate these decisions and
choices, but it does seek to be of help by indicating ethical and moral criteria
which are relevant to the process—criteria which are to be found in both human and
Christian values”.41
The Internet can make an enormously valuable contribution to human life. It can
foster prosperity and peace, intellectual and aesthetic growth, mutual understanding
among peoples and nations on a global scale.
It also can help men and women in their age-old search for self-understanding. In
every age, including our own, people ask the same fundamental questions: “Who am
I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there
after this life?” 42 The Church cannot impose answers, but she can—and
must—proclaim to the world the answers she has received; and today, as always, she
offers the one ultimately satisfying answer to the deepest questions of life—Jesus
Christ, who “fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling”.43
Like today's world itself, the world of media, including the Internet, has been
brought by Christ, inchoately yet truly, within the boundaries of the kingdom of
God and placed in service to the word of salvation. Yet “far from diminishing our
concern to develop this earth, the expectancy of a new earth should spur us on,
for it is here that the body of a new human family grows, foreshadowing in some
way the age which is to come”.44
Vatican City, February 22, 2002, Feast of the Chair of St. Peter the Apostle.
(3) Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Communications,
n. 5.
(7) John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, n. 2, April
27, 2001.
(9) John Paul II, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See, n.
3, January 10, 2000.
(10) Address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, n. 2.
(12) Pontifical Commission for Social Communications, Pastoral Instruction on the
Means of Social Communication, Communio et progressio, n. 19.
(13) Address to the Diplomatic Corps, n. 4.
(18) Message for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace 2001, n. 11.
(20) John Paul II, Message for the 33rd World Communications Day, n. 4, January
24, 1999.
(21) John Paul II, Message for the 31st World Day of Communications, 1997.
(22) Address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, n. 5.
(25) Message for the World Day of Peace 2001, n. 10.
(29) John Paul II, Address to the Jubilee of Journalists, n. 2, June 4, 2000.
(33) Cf. John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio,
n. 76.
(36) Cf. Communio et progressio, n. 79.
(38) Cf. Address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, n. 2.
(40) John Paul II, Address to the UN Secretary General and to the Administrative
Committee on Coordination of the United Nations, nn. 2, 3, April 7, 2000.