Pope instructs followers to put the iPhone away during dinner Pope Francis has slammed the use of smartphones and warned that they risk damaging family life. Speaking at the Vatican yesterday, the Pontiff noted that the dinner table is where families experience a sense of "togetherness," but that it can be ruined by over-attachment to modern technology. "A family that almost never eats …
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Yes, the Pope has stated what we all knew, ie. staring at a glowing slab 23 hours a day might not be too healthy, and actually interacting with people such as your family/friends/house mates might be better, especially around meal times. He's not wrong. Slabbing or reading a book at the table has always been bad manners anyway.
Parents will likely agree with the Pope. Some teenagers (who are, of course, even more infallible than his Holiness) may disagree. Parents! Stand firm!
This is the time I'm having supper with you guys!
Well, when he's right, he's right. However, I'm having two questions to follow up:
1) Can El Reg please ask HRM (in her capacity as another religious leader) to give us her take on this?
2) Has anyone checked Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks on possible sketches of cellphones yet?
I'm not a Catholic and I honestly think that most religions are really out of touch with the modern world, but damn if I don't agree with him on this.
I recently went out with some friends, none of us had seen each other in years, and it seemed like I was the only one who kept my phone in my pocket...
If you can't hold a conversation over a meal without checking your email/facebook/whatever every five minutes there is something seriously wrong with you.
Absolutely.
Or how many times have I seen a family...mother, father, and x number of offspring sitting around a restaurant table, each with some sort of electronic device in their hands, their heads bowed, pecking away at the screen...and no one is talking to anyone else at the table. What a wonderful world this has become.
The dumbing down of society continues.
Or how many times have I seen a family...mother, father, and x number of offspring sitting around a restaurant table, each with some sort of electronic device in their hands, their heads bowed, pecking away at the screen...and no one is talking to anyone else at the table.
Nice. Very sociable. You might as well sit in cupboard eating crisps.
Well, we don't demand personal experience in many other fields. Doctors don't need to have had illness, social workers don't need to have children etc.
There are many things to criticise the Catholic church for but this guy seems to be a good one overall. He'll have seen, talked to and helped enough families that he's experienced enough to be able to comment. The fact he's chosen not to go that route himself is really neither here nor there.
@AC
"Just medieval theatrics desperately looking for modern day relevance."
And what, is wrong with that? I am no friend to the catholic church and have no favour for religion in general. My personal opinion is that, while some people find it useful and comforting, it is a crutch that we, as a species, would be ultimately better off without, once all is weighed. The transition may be painful and difficult for some but I firmly believe that, in time, a world without religion will be a better world than one with it.
But that is just my opinion and I know others think very differently. I am not arguing with them so much as presenting my own view as a disclaimer to what I am about to say, which is that I am sick of people like you, who ridicule the Catholic Church's lack of relevance* and then lambast their attempts to become more relevant.
People like you denounce them for adhering to religious dogma but then turn around denounce them even more soundly when they try to change.
To an extent I do understand a part of the criticism because the Catholic Church has indeed set itself rules that in some cases work to preclude them from being as responsive to modern values and as accepting of the far greater breadth of people and ways of life of those who call themselves Catholic as many believe they should be.
But in this, I actually have a measure of sympathy for them because their history has in a sense painted them into a corner. There are, of course, many who are ultra conservative, which, despite the apparently world-wide love-in, was seen no better than in John Paul II and Benedict. But no one ever said progress must be straight and steady, with no halts or set backs.
Things like this change slowly and what you should understand is that the papacy is not just one "man-in-a-dress" - it's a complex political institution and the pope does not operate in isolation and is certainly not elected by anything other than a thoroughly political process. So the choice of who is to be pope can be seen to reflect a decision by the cardinals on where they want the church to be heading.
I feel that it is particularly relevant to note that, prior to his election, the then Cardinal Bergoglio spoke out about a great many issues he saw with the bureaucracy of the Vatican (in particular the Italian-dominated Curia) , including, quite specifically the corruption. And yet he was put in a position to start addressing those issues, for example inside the Vatican Bank.
I know the preceding paragraphs may come across as as support for the church or a devotion to a "man-in-a-dress", but it is not.
The Catholic Church is far from spotless and they may never redeem themselves, but to discount any efforts to improve themselves and better represent the millions of Catholics that look to them for guidance and support is to insist that they shouldn't change - that you won't accept any change; that no matter what they do, you will judge them always by what they were rather than what they are or what they are working to become.
What comes of it is another question but the Catholic Church is not, contrary to your assertion, the same as it in the 15th and 16th or even the 19th century and, if it survives and manages to stay relevant then it will not look the same in the 22nd century as it does in the 21st.
* - Despite the fact that it is very relevant to a great many people.
No, it's not a dress. You darn well know that, but I'll give you chapter and verse anyway.
It's a cassock, and probably a surplice on top of that. It's based on the vestis talaris which civilized, (and rather macho Romans) were wearing while trouser-clad barbarian types were still figuring out how to get the lice out of their beards. How is it that no-one suggests that Caesar was wearing a dress while his be-skirted legionaries were knocking the crap out of the Britons?
You might just as well refer to a navy seal in battledress as wearing panties and a chemise instead of boxer shorts and camo jacket - the descriptions are equally inaccurate.
....social workers don't need to have children.....
That one's a bad example. If they had to, they might just understand what a complete crock of shit "social science"[1] is in this area. "An ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory" has never been more true than it is here.
[1] In quotes, 'cos the word "science" is heavily misused in this context.
@TeeCee
I am not going to downvote you because that's just not my thing. But I am going to have to disagree with you pretty strongly.
You are quite right that experience is necessary to complement theory and in that regard I suspect you have exactly f^%k all experience with social workers. Now, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you or someone you know had a bad experience with a social worker - heaven knows they're only human and thus variously good and bad at their jobs, just like teachers and doctors and nurses and IT professionals and welders and whatever it is you do.
But if that is the case then that's where you can't just rely on your own observations and where learning provides a greater perspective to understand a broader range of situations rather than the limited experience that any one person can have.
Now, my experience with social workers is that I, personally, know several, both family and friends, and have dealt with two who were helping people I knew - one a school friend and one a close family member - and can testify that those who are good at their jobs are some of the most dedicated people I know. Indeed, the experience with the two in my youth actually had me change my carrier path from IT to social work, believe it or not. In the end, circumstances changed unavoidably and I had to decline my university acceptance, and after a while I took up IT again, though that is getting off topic a bit.
It's important to understand, however, that social workers work inside a legal framework but, within that, they fight for the people they represent in ways that I doubt you appreciate; advocating for them with medical professionals, hospital and healthcare administrators, government representative, police, landlords, teachers, bosses, parents, and anyone and everyone they need to or can. They argue the rules and, where there is room, they attempt to secure assistance that might otherwise be difficult to obtain - things like extra days in a hospital beds, consideration exams at school, admittance into programs. recognition of extenuating circumstances and so forth.
They will fill out the forms at home at night and deliver them in-person at meetings and hearings, across town and in their lunch breaks, after having spent an entire weekend at the hospital and visiting clients.
A great deal of social work has nothing at all to do with parenting, but even where it does, a social worker is primarily concerned with the well-being of the person whose care they are trusted with. It is certainly true that, when dealing with a family situation (which is not universal in social work,) it is important to understand the dynamics and history of a family. What is not clear, however, is why exactly experience with one single family (your own) provides a suitable or even necessary basis for understanding the complex situations that exist in another family; keeping in mind that a social worker may have to deal with several families in a week and dozens over the course of a year - all unique with unique histories and unique concerns and problems.
And this is where theory - and training - comes in as one must know how to walk into a situation with a family who are strangers and who may even be hostile to you and to go from there to a position where you are able to not only understand the problems and opportunities but to then work with or, sometimes - regrettably - in opposition to them to achieve the best outcome.
That's not a skillset that simply being a parent provides you with, just as it doesn't provide you with the necessary training and knowledge of the (complex) legal and regulatory landscape that you must operate in.
So really, I do agree that "practice" and "experience" are essential components to the development of a social worker, but that practice is the practice of social work and that experience is the experience of the situations in which a social worker must operate.
The suggestion that social workers, trained an experiencing in social work are somehow less able to do their job and advocate and assist those in their care is as ignorant and it is insulting.
I don't know you but I hope you never have need of a social worker. But, if you do then I hope you get some small appreciation for the job they do and how dedicated the vast, vast, majority of them are and how utterly wrong you were to dismiss the level or care and concern and sheer hard work that they bring to achieve positive outcomes.
And wouldn't it make much more sense if Secretaries of State had some experience in their field? To be fair, a few do, but is it any surprise that the most reviled Education Secretary of modern times - Michael Gove - is a journalist by training, whose sole experience of education was as a pupil at a private school? And now they've given him the Lord Chancellor role. What the heck? (Ok, so most teachers I know would cite his superior attitude first, but his lack of background knowledge comes a close second).
Gove's predecessor - Ed Balls - was hardly better, with a degree in economics, and his successor, Nicky Morgan, is a solicitor. They have all been privately educated at secondary school level (Gove by means of a scholarship) and their careers outside politics have been somewhat tangential - Balls and Gove were journalists for a while, and Morgan a solicitor.
I could do a similar list for pretty much every other cabinet role, but to return to the original point, I think it's true in general that having children yourself changes your perspective slightly and would make you think differently in a role such as social worker, health visitor, teacher, midwife, it might not necessarily make you any better at your job but from personal experience it certainly helps!
M.
@David Dawson
I have upvoted you because I agree with most of what you say. Actually, I agree with all of it.
But, I do disagree with some of what the hat-man said. To start with:
"A family that almost never eats together, or that never speaks at the table but looks at the television or the smartphone, is hardly a family"
Now, as with you, I don't think it's necessary for him to have personally experienced every facet of a situation to comment on it (he was, after all a child with parent even he has no children himself). So I am fine with him giving advice to the effect that we need to communicate with one another and that technology can form a barrier to that just as much as it can facilitate it.
What I am not fine with, however, is to have someone else tell me or anyone else that their family is "hardly a family" just because we don't revere the dinner table as the centerpiece of our homes; as some kind of altar that sanctifies this special rite without which we are "not a family".
At that point, he can keep his opinions to himself.
Analysing it a bit more, however, he has publicly announced that he doesn't use technology or even watch television. And that is fine - admirable even, to some - but now he is speaking about the intersection of two things he is less familiar with than most of the people he is trying to advise.
In my opinion, the lack of a personal experience of technology is the bigger failing here because, as you (David) have said, you don't have to have to be a parent yourself to counsel parents but you very much do have to understand and have some personal experience with technology to be able to advise people about that.
He has rightly said that modern communications can bring people together but the he decides that there is a difference between communicating with family and friends long-distance and communicating with family and friends who might be easier to see face-to-face. What he doesn't understand - or doesn't accept - is that the modern communication he presents as a barrier for families has changed things.
Before the ubiquitous availability of Internet access and use of mobile devices, there was very little opportunity for families (or friends) to communicate with each other through the day and this, naturally puts a large focus on those times when it is possible to have a conversation.
But that was then. Now, families have the ability to communicate very nearly whenever they want. Through social media and mobile phones, I would suspect that many parent know more about their where there children are and who they are friends with and what music and activities they like than they ever did before. Modern communications also allow far more frequent and in-depth information to be provided to parents about what is happening during a school day - I know several teachers (friends and extended family) and they even use Skype to communicate with parents when there are situations where parents cannot be there face-to-face. In Pope Francis' word, however, that information may never get to parents - at least not in a timely fashion as there is then a reliance on children volunteering the information.
Likewise in a world without mobile devices, once a child has left the home, that is it: from that point, you are out of touch until they return.
My somewhat long-winded point is that, while face-to-face communication is still an important part of many relationships, many things that required face-to-face communication no longer do and, moreover, for some things electronic/mobile communication is better because it is more timely.
Look, the man makes a valid point by offering useful advice, but he goes too far in asserting some kind of authority on what is and is not a 'family'*.
* - Even despite his considerably more liberal approach than his predecessors.
@dan1980
Before the ubiquitous availability of Internet access and use of mobile devices, there was very little opportunity for families (or friends) to communicate with each other through the day and this, naturally puts a large focus on those times when it is possible to have a conversation.
But that was then. Now, families have the ability to communicate very nearly whenever they want. Through social media and mobile phones, I would suspect that many parent know more about their where there children are and who they are friends with and what music and activities they like than they ever did before.
The thing is though, Dan, that communication is all very well, and you are correct that it is easier and more available now, but the ability to communicate is notthe same as proper social interaction, and in particular the close family interaction which you get from regularly eating together or gathering together.
There is strong evidence to suggest that the children of families who set aside time to get together regularly are more confident socially, and in particular young children's language acquisition and literacy development are much better in families who regularly eat together than in children from families who rarely spend time together.
Well says you. If you expect me to pay attention to somebody lecturing somebody on what their children should be doing then personally I'd like to know they've got some. Likewise a bunch of celibates telling the world that contraception is evil, again not my bag. Still you've got to keep the women down somehow, eh?
This post has been deleted by its author
'Cos it would have been obvious who snitched to the authorities about Jesus' location.
The pope's right of course. Not about the robe thing, though, that just make you look a bit daft.
I taught some kids today. Attention spans of a gnat and behaviour I'd never have contemplated at their age.
I blame tech and industry. Not just hi-tech and the internet, basic TV too. Too much emotional programming, to much on-demand satisfaction. To many parents out at work for too long then watching tv at home, depriving children of adult company and social interaction.
This post has been deleted by its author
"There is little difference between this and what goes on in Muslim Madrassas."
Don't see the Catholics instructing kids that Western education is evil, that the only thing worth doing is memorising a book, that women are property, or that waging neverending war against the infidel is the duty of everyone.
Aside from that, yeah, just like the madrassas.
"Most of them, especially the children DIDN'T sign up....they were indoctrinated from birth"
While I agree with you, our society generally says adults are adults. Either we accept that they have the ability to consciously change their beliefs, or we drop the silly fiction that adults are responsible for all their own actions all the time. Can't have both.
Most of them, especially the children DIDN'T sign up....they were indoctrinated from birth, and never had the chance to reject this evil religion.
And why shouldn't parents indoctrinate their kids? That's what parents are for. My parents "indoctrinated" me with plenty of stuff, most of which turned out to be true and very useful.
"Judos, why are you tweeting me?"
(Also: INB4 Judas was a false flag operation)
There is good rigorous evidence that shared family mealtimes improve a number of childhood outcomes. If you don't have a shared mealtime, I would definitely recommend that you consider it.
See https://www.human.cornell.edu/pam/outreach/upload/Family-Mealtimes-2.pdf for example.
There is good rigorous evidence that shared family mealtimes improve a number of childhood outcomes.
Correlation or causation? Perhaps a subset of "Good parents" is "Parents who share mealtimes" - but that doesn't mean that the subset is also a superset. From your linked PDF:
As mentioned in the summary of the Musick and Meier study, one of the most common criticisms of family meal research is that it is difficult to isolate family mealtime benefits as distinct from other factors in the family environment.
and
Family dinners may be part and parcel of a broader package of practices, routines, and rituals that reflect parenting beliefs and priorities. Interventions aimed at increasing the frequency of family meals may be successful only if they can change the family habits that tend to go along with eating as a family
So cargo cult parenting, that is having shared mealtimes but not the other family habits that shared mealtimes often imply, doesn't necessarily help.
However, in our defense, we do have a 'power station' in a central area for the kids* to put *all* their devices on at bed time and mealtimes. Router set up by MAC address to kill network access at preset times for school days and weekends.
Occasionally we'll hangout each other since our floor plan has the kids on one end of the house while we're on the other, but the tech does help bring everyone together too. We have a family Minecraft server 'The Lonely Mountain' on the home network, CounterStrike LAN parties, neighborhoods in Hayday, clan in Clash of Clans, guild on Everquest, etc, so we actually play together too. Everything has it's +/-, moderation in all things= !Win!
*We have normal, sneaky, kids who don't believe parents were ever kids... and I was kinda an ass when I was young lol. Still am in a lot of ways lol.
Yup - I'll go for this, despite being an atheist. That man seems to have the right idea in that direction. Friends and other folk mock me for having no time for phones, despite being a techie. I was a telephone engineer in a previous life and I freely admit to indulging in my big boys' toys such as computing, home cinema and hi-fi, with the emphasis on high-end quality. I have to say, however, that phones do nothing for my techie taste buds and the beasts leave me stone cold. I posses one, as I now drive for a living, and need one for emergencies but otherwise it gets used as little as possible and, as for checking mail and this, that and the other every few minutes (not to mention photographing anything and everything within view), as some people seem to have to constantly do to fuel their addiction, this is something I can well do without. The invention has a lot to answer for.
A smart phone can be invaluable when travelling abroad.
Google Maps, for instance, is great for navigating to new places via foot or public transport. The phone can even provide back up satnav for the car.
It is also very useful for keeping in touch with a globally dispersed family.
It all depends on your personal needs.
I was a lad when mobile phones did not exist, and still remember the issues about checking in with worried parents, finding a working public phone to call from. Last century issues now.
A lot of my generation are a bit Luddite about phones, but they can be a godsend. Not everyone spends all their time on Twitter or Facebook posting pictures of themselves and their latest meal. Or playing Candy Crush or other exciting games.
So if you are engaged in social interaction face to face it is polite to give precedence to those around you. Mobile phones can offer a temptation which derails that. However this does not render them in any way a bad thing.
Oh, and I can now wander around talking to myself and everyone thinks that I am on the phone :-)
I love my smartphone for the tools it gives me to make my life a little easier.
However I don't feel the need to shuffle along mindlessly staring at it, and when I'm out with friends or family it stays in my pocket.
You see too many young couples these days out at restaurants, barely speaking as they hunch over their phones. Whats the point of going out just to do that?
Someone has found a cheap and easy workaround - problem solved!
Ah, so why not have Roman Abramovich's thoughts on family dinners?
Yes, sorry, I forgot all these servants I have and high-class rent-boys. Easy to forget when you're not in a gilded palace.
Seriously though, you really think he's not pampered? The guy's the head of a multinational billion-dollar firm which claims to worship a man who would give his life for other men yet they have a whole country of their own they could sell to help with world hunger yet just sit by and watch...
"What relevance or authority has this pampered prick?"
Regardless of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, his relevance and authority is what he is given by other people. Contrast that with "Power grows out of the barrel of a gun", and I know which I prefer.
There are still a lot of Catholics. They have a huge influence on US politics (especially via the Supreme Court.) Don't blame me, I'm an agnostic.
anyone who prefers to use Social Media whilst in the presence of others who are trying to engage in Conversation with you are being decidely anti-social.
If someone does that when talking to me, I refuse to communicate with them for an hour afterwards. It is obvious what is the most important (wasting their time on Social Media)thing in their lives so why should I waste my time with them?
Manners and common curtesy please.
Me and best friends make a habit of the following:
Phones / tablets go away*, we enjoy a few ales, a film, and each other's company. When the hangover is..uh..over the next day, I gather from my pained abdominals that we had a bloody good laugh and I then enjoy the feeling of having spent quality time with my pals.
* - you will end up apologising to 69 people for not replying to them immediately when you next look at the phone. When did that become a thing?
The Pope may not have a wife and kids, but priests don't spring into this world in isolation, fully armed with bell, book and candle.
He has brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, and will have sat down to many, many family meals in his lifetime. In his role as a priest he will have joined many families for family meals.
And deep down, we all know he's right, sometimes the only time a family gathers together in one place is for the family meals.
Back in August, the Pope warned that "chatting on the internet or with smartphones, watching TV soap operas" was not improving the quality of life but was "distracting attention away from what is really important" - like worshiping an all-powerful deity and overseeing a global network of adherents in dresses.
Really? Sub-Hopkins troll bait in The Register now?
Perhaps El Reg should spend more time writing, making phone calls and actually talking to people, and less time reading Twitter, chatting on the Internet, browsing Buzzfeed...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
