Trolling and other antisocial behaviors are widespread online. They can even be found in devout Catholic circles, though outright trollery and the "culture of hate" are perhaps more easily recognized and avoided than a more subtle but related phenomenon: what might be called a culture of wrath, of rage.

Wrath is one of the seven capital sins. Not all anger amounts to the sin of wrath; there is such a thing as righteous anger, as Jesus' own example demonstrates.

For those of us who are not Jesus, though, righteous anger easily slides into the unrighteous kind — and the more we are provoked to anger and outrage, the likelier it is that we will do so.

How much we are provoked to anger and outrage — how much mental energy we give to topics that we find outrageous, scandalous and offensive — is thus an important concern. If there is one biblical exhortation most commonly transgressed on social media by otherwise sincere believers, I suspect it is these well-known, well-loved words of St. Paul:

"Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things" (Philippians 4:8).

These words mustn't be taken too absolutely. There is a place for naming and resisting evil, for alerting and warning others of danger, for outrage, for righteous anger. St. Paul does not mean that dishonorable, unjust, impure things, things worthy of condemnation rather than praise, shouldnever be thought of.

We cannot take Paul's words seriously, though, without taking stock of just how much of our attention and energy we give to thinking about dishonorable, unjust, impure things that are worthy of condemnation, as opposed to honorable, just, pure things that are worthy of praise. Continue reading

Sources

• The Catholic World Report article by Deacon Steven D. Greydanus, a veteran film critic and creator of DecentFilms.com.
• Image: The Wrap

A recent NY Times commentary, "The Art of Condolence" by author Bruce Feiler, wades into these choppy waters of shifting cultural expectations.

Penned after Feiler's own mighty struggle to write a condolence letter upon the death of a teenager in his community, in the essay Feiler reflects upon the condolence letter genre, and then shares seven helpful tips.

The tips seem quite reasonable, actually, but I was struck instead by the framing of the piece.

In the introduction, Feiler notes, "But these days, as Facebooking, Snapchatting or simply ignoring friends has become fashionable, the rules of expressing sympathy have become muddied at best, and concealed in an onslaught of emoji at worst.

"Sorry about Mom. Sad face, sad face, crying face, heart, heart, unicorn."

I take the point, I suppose, that changing patterns of communication are requiring new decisions about what's most appropriate when.

And, Feiler's sixth tip addresses the issue in a general way: "Facebook is not enough."

Of course it isn't.

Two things seem missing in Feiler's quick pass at digital grieving (by the way, a group I'm working with may present some related research down the line).

First, the strength of the relationship with the person mourning matters enormously.

If the grieving party is a close friend, or grieving because of a close friend or relative of mine, of course I will write a hand-written note of condolence. But Facebook and other social media tools extend network relationships well beyond what was possible in the past.

So, if a friend of a friend's cousin who I met at a party once three years ago posts a Facebook update upon a death in the family, it wouldn't actually be appropriate to send a hand-written note.

In that case, using Facebook as a communication platform seems fine. Continue reading

• Adam J. Copeland teaches practical theology, listens to NPR, drinks scotch, devours sharp cheddar, and tries to ask great questions.