Mentions related to communication in the FRATELLI TUTTI ENCYCLICAL LETTER
Communication - 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 114, 156, 199, 205, 266.
Media - 43, 46, 52, 114, 156, 166, 199, 201, 205, 266.
Networks - 45, 47, 52, 200, 205.
Internet - 46, 50, 205
The illusion of communication
42. Paradoxically, while closed and intolerant attitudes develop that close us off from others, distances are shortened or disappear to the point that the right to privacy ceases to exist. Everything becomes a kind of spectacle that can be spied on, watched, and life is exposed to constant control. In digital communication you want to show everything and each individual becomes the object of gazes that rummage, undress and disclose, often anonymously. Respect for the other is shattered and, in this way, at the same time that I displace him, I ignore him and keep him away, without any shame I can invade his life to the extreme.
43 . On the other hand, the digital movements of hatred and destruction do not constitute - as some would have us believe - an adequate form of group care, but mere associations against an enemy. On the other hand, " the digital media can expose the risk of dependency, isolation and progressive loss of contact with concrete reality, hindering the development of authentic interpersonal relationships" [46] . Physical gestures, facial expressions, silences, body language, and even perfume, shaking hands, blush, perspiration are necessary, because all that speaks and is part of human communication. Digital relationships, which exempt the laborious cultivation of friendship, stable reciprocity, and even a consensus that matures over time, have the appearance of sociability. They do not truly build an "us" but tend to conceal and amplify the same individualism that is expressed in xenophobia and in the contempt of the weak. The digital connection is not enough to build bridges, it is not enough to unite humanity.
46 . It should be recognized that the fanaticisms that lead to the destruction of others are also carried out by religious people, without excluding Christians, who “can be part of networks of verbal violence through the internet and the various forums or spaces for digital exchange . Even in Catholic circles, limits can be lost, defamation and slander are often naturalized, and all ethics and respect for the fame of others seem to be left out " [48] . What is thus contributed to the fraternity that the common Father proposes to us?
Information without wisdom
47 . True wisdom supposes the encounter with reality. But today everything can be produced, concealed, altered. This makes the direct encounter with the limits of reality intolerable. As a consequence, a "selection" mechanism is operated and the habit is created of immediately separating what I like from what I don't like, the attractive from the ugly. With the same logic, the people with whom one decides to share the world are chosen. Thus, people or situations that hurt our sensitivity or caused us displeasure today are simply eliminated in virtual networks , building a virtual circle that isolates us from the environment in which we live.
48 . Sitting down to listen to another , characteristic of a human encounter, is a paradigm of a receptive attitude , of someone who overcomes narcissism and receives the other, pays attention to him, welcomes him in his own circle. But 'today's world is mostly a deaf world. […] Sometimes the speed of the modern world, the frenzy prevents us from listening well to what another person is saying. And when he is in the middle of his dialogue, we already interrupt him and we want to answer him when he still has not finished saying. We must not lose the ability to listen ». Saint Francis of Assisi «heard the voice of God, listened to the voice of the poor, listened to the voice of the sick, listened to the voice of nature. And all that transforms it into a lifestyle. I want the seed of Saint Francis to grow in so many hearts » [49] .
49 . As silence and listening disappear, turning everything into quick and anxious typing and messages , this basic structure of wise human communication is put at risk. A new lifestyle is created where one builds what he wants to have in front of him, excluding everything that cannot be controlled or known superficially and instantly. This dynamic, due to its intrinsic logic, prevents serene reflection that could lead us to a common wisdom.
50. We can seek the truth together in dialogue, in quiet conversation, or in passionate discussion. It is a persevering path, also made up of silence and suffering, capable of patiently collecting the long experience of individuals and peoples. The overwhelming accumulation of information that floods us does not mean more wisdom. Wisdom is not manufactured with anxious searches on the internet , nor is it a summation of information whose veracity is not assured. In this way, the encounter with the truth does not mature. The conversations finally only revolve around the latest data, they are merely horizontal and cumulative. But careful attention is not paid and the heart of life is not penetrated, what is essential to give meaning to existence is not recognized. Thus, freedom is an illusion that they sell us and that is confused with the freedom to navigate in front of a screen. The problem is that a path of fraternity, local and universal, can only be traveled by free spirits and willing to real encounters.
52. Destroying someone's self-esteem is an easy way to tame it. Behind these trends that seek to homogenize the world, power interests emerge that benefit from low self-esteem, while, through the media and networks, an attempt is made to create a new culture at the service of the most powerful. This is taken advantage of by the advantage of financial speculation and plunder, where the poor are the ones who always lose. On the other hand, ignoring the culture of a people makes many political leaders fail to implement an efficient project that can be freely assumed and sustained over time.
The value of solidarity
114. I want to highlight solidarity, which “as a moral virtue and social attitude, the fruit of personal conversion, requires the commitment of all those who have educational and formative responsibilities. First of all, I address families, called to a primary and essential educational mission. They are the first place where the values of love and fraternity, coexistence and sharing, caring for and caring for the other are lived and transmitted. They are also the privileged environment for the transmission of the faith from those first simple gestures of devotion that mothers teach their children. Educators and trainers who, at school or in the different child and youth association centers, have the arduous task of educating children and young people, are called to become aware that their responsibility has to do with moral dimensions, spiritual and social aspects of the person. The values of freedom, mutual respect and solidarity are transmitted from the earliest childhood. […] Those who are dedicated to the world of culture and the media of social communication also have a responsibility in the field of education and training, especially in contemporary society, in which access to training instruments and communication is increasingly widespread » [87] .
Popular or populist
156. In recent years the expression “populism” or “populist” has invaded the media and language in general. Thus it loses the value it could contain and becomes one of the polarities of the divided society. This reached the point of trying to classify all people, groups, societies and governments based on a binary division: "populist" or "non-populist". It is no longer possible for someone to comment on any topic without trying to classify it in one of those two poles, sometimes to unfairly discredit it or to exalt it excessively
166. All of this could be hung by pins, if we lose the ability to see the need for a change in human hearts, habits and lifestyles. This is what happens when political propaganda, the media and public opinion builders persist in fostering an individualistic and naive culture in the face of unbridled economic interests and the organization of societies at the service of those who already have too much power. For this reason, my criticism of the technocratic paradigm does not mean that only by trying to control its excesses can we be insured, because the greatest danger does not reside in things, in material realities, in organizations, but in the way in which people use them. The issue is human frailty, the constant tendency to human selfishness that is part of what the Christian tradition calls "lust": the human being's inclination to shut himself up in the immanence of his own self, of his group, of his petty interests . That concupiscence is not a defect of this age. It existed since man has been a man and simply transforms himself, acquires different modalities in each century, and finally uses the instruments that the historical moment puts at his disposal. But it is possible to master it with the help of God.
Social dialogue towards a new culture
199. Some try to flee from reality by taking refuge in private worlds, and others face it with destructive violence, but “between selfish indifference and violent protest, there is always a possible option: dialogue. The dialogue between the generations, the dialogue in the people, because we are all people, the ability to give and receive, remaining open to the truth. A country grows when its various cultural riches interact in a constructive way: popular culture, university culture, youth culture, artistic culture, technology, economic culture, the culture of the family and the media ” [ 196] .
200. Dialogue is often confused with something very different: a feverish exchange of opinions on social networks , often guided by media information that is not always reliable. They are just monologues that proceed in parallel, perhaps imposing themselves on the attention of others by their high or aggressive tones. But monologues do not compromise anyone, to the point that their content is often opportunistic and contradictory.
201. The resounding dissemination of facts and claims in the media , in reality, tends to close the possibilities of dialogue, because it allows each one to keep their ideas, interests and options untouchable and without nuance under the excuse of the mistakes of others. The habit of quickly disqualifying the adversary prevails, applying humiliating epithets to him, instead of facing an open and respectful dialogue, where an overcoming synthesis is sought. The worst thing is that this language, common in the media context of a political campaign, has become widespread in such a way that everyone uses it on a daily basis. The debate is frequently manipulated by certain interests that have greater power, dishonestly trying to tilt public opinion in their favor. I am not referring only to the government of the day, since this manipulative power can be economic, political, media , religious or of any kind. Sometimes it is justified or excused when its dynamics respond to one's own economic or ideological interests, but sooner or later it turns against those same interests
205. In this globalized world “the media can help us feel closer to each other, to perceive a renewed sense of unity of the human family that drives us to solidarity and serious commitment to a life more dignified for all. […] They can help us in this task, especially today, when the networks of human communication have reached unprecedented levels of development. In particular, the Internet can offer greater opportunities for meeting and solidarity among all; and this is a good thing, it is a gift from God » [199] . But it is necessary to constantly verify that the current forms of communication effectively guide us to generous encounters, to the sincere search for the whole truth, to service, to being close to the least, to the task of building the common good. At the same time, as the Australian Bishops taught, "we cannot accept a digital world designed to exploit our weaknesses and bring out the worst in people" [200] .
266. Fears and resentments easily lead to understanding penalties in a vindictive, if not cruel, way, instead of understanding them as part of a process of healing and reintegration into society. Today, “both by some sectors of politics and by some media, violence and revenge are sometimes incited, public and private, not only against those who are responsible for having committed crimes, but also against who are suspected, founded or not, of not having complied with the law. […] There is a tendency to deliberately build enemies: stereotypical figures, who concentrate in themselves all the characteristics that society perceives or interprets as dangerous. The mechanisms of formation of these images are the same that, at the time, allowed the expansion of racist ideas » [255] . This has made the growing habit in some countries of going to remand prisons, detention without trial and especially the death penalty particularly risky.