Cybernet families

Actually prepared by the Bishops’ Committee on Communications, the document was a response to concerns about obscene and hate-filled material on the Internet as well as to Web sites which claim to be Catholic in nature but might be something very different. Setting up a domain name is cheap so parents should double-check in the proper quarters the sites they access. There can be bogus use of the name of a diocese or other Church entity.
The Bishops acknowledged that the Internet has value as an unparalleled source of information and as an educational tool. However the ultimate optimism of the Bishops has not blinded them to the dangers. Just a few mouse-clicks can lead a child into a sea of sexually explicit or gratuitously violent and hate-filled material. Contacts with strangers in chatrooms are dangerous. Sexual predators roam the Internet. Isolated individuals, especially children can lack the necessary moral and social support to resist what is offered. Hate-speak may be the first contact children have with other ethnic groups. Pornography, which tends to be habit-forming and to graduate to increasingly graphic material, puts new pressures on marriage and family relationships, and sexlines can draw people into immoral and dangerous situations, the Bishops warn.

In the face of so many dangers what should parents be doing? The best protection, the Bishops say, is shared prayer and Christian values in the home, with open discussion of Internet issues. This makes parents’ involvement in the children’s use of the Internet natural. The same rules that apply in real life must apply on the Internet, e.g., not talking to strangers. The Bishops tell parents to choose an ISP (Internet Service Provider) that excludes at least some inappropriate material, that offers parental control, restricts access to chatrooms and newsgroups and that maintains records of sites visited.
The other protection that the document stresses is the installation of filtering systems. On this point I spoke with my son James, director of International Development for the Exotrope Corporation at Elmira, NY, USA.
His firm markets the BAIR system which works with any Internet connection. It ‘learns’ as it goes along, filtering the Internet content and intercepting the unwanted images before they reach the screen. James commented on the Bishops’ recommendation, Installing a filter will allow parents to leave their children to learn and play on the Internet without the worry of their coming into contact with undesirable material.
Naturally there are other systems, some of them listed by the Bishops, including CyberPatrol, CyberSitter, Net Nanny, Surfwatch, X-Stop and Rated-PG. Some liberal opinion is opposed to these blocking softwares; they say they endanger freedoms but what I like most about the Bishops’ approach is its gutsy realism. They grasp that when anything goes, soon everything is gone. They have not let their arms drop to their sides. They could look St. Teresa of Avila in the eye, in the light of her view of censorship: I sometimes think how wrong it is of parents not to contrive that their children should always and in every way see only what is good. No one step guarantees protection but the measures suggested are a good start and communicate parents’ values to their children. If parents don’t care, neither will children. The Bishops rightly warn that filtering systems could restrict some proper research on the Internet but, going back to the BAIR system, of which I have some knowledge, I can counter that as their system is not based solely on key-word blocking, this risk is minimal.
Parents should enjoy and not fear their children’s greater competence on the Internet. I am told that there will soon be one billion jobs on the planet for people with Internet skills. Catholic children are going to need them along with everyone else. It is a good aspect of the Internet that it is already creating good jobs in poor countries and will be a great wealth creator in this way. Some people say the Internet is too big and complex to be controlled. But the Bishops urge that we do not give up in the face of complexity. We must protect children and ensure that the Internet contributes positively to society. Otherwise it will become mainly a vehicle for hate, violence and obscenity.

Parents cannot shoulder the whole responsibility but they can follow the steps the Bishops suggest to play their part. For example some rooms and times should be kept computer-free as they have always been TV-free. The problem must not be thought solved because filtering systems exist. There might not be filters in other computers your children use. Those who work on the technology side should continue improving their systems, the Bishops say.
Finally, they expressed concern that various schools of thought were urging that no law could or should trammel it, that its anonymity relieved us of responsibility about it and that its diversity should in no way be restricted. Yet Government does have a role. If the Internet is to be part of the community then the law must apply in Cyberspace as elsewhere.

_

Parents must counter the dangers of the internet by communicating Christian values to their web-using children