“Repent, and believe in the Gospel” (Mk 1:15).
Modern means
Related articles
Click on the titles below to read some of the articles at June 2010 issue of the Living City
about the role of digital media in the way we live.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| How much do we value a free Internet? |
Using the web to spread the good news |
A producer’s story |
The other publishing revolution |
How to use new media for building unity

The little green check-mark popped up at the bottom of my computer screen: my friend was online. I knew she had had a rough start that day, but did not want to disturb her with a phone call during working hours. So I logged in with a quick chat: “I am cheering for you,” with a smiley face icon. It turned out to be exactly what she needed to help her turn the day around.
The new means of communication can be a powerful tool for strengthening relationships of mutual love and unity. It’s enough to watch a meeting hall leap with joy when a video-conference call with a dear friend across the ocean comes into focus. It’s enough to count the number of friends who seemed to be out of touch, but who show up at a gathering because they saw the invitation on Facebook. In our work with Living City, it’s enough to scan the e-mails that zip through the Internet, even late in the editing process, filled with an honest sharing of opinions and editorial help.
The new means of communication have also opened the floodgates to allow much broader participation in the media-based conversation. Blogs have burst open the world of opinion journalism far beyond the control of its previous “gatekeepers,” enabling just about anyone with a keyboard to freely share a perspective. Money and influence matter less in the actual work of getting one’s message out and across, enabling previously excluded voices to contribute to the exchange of ideas.
But there are also downsides to these new technologies. If you walk down the streets of any urban environment you will notice how the need to be constantly hooked up to some kind of communication device can make us oblivious to everything else: a beautiful day; neighbors to help or simply acknowledge; or even the bald fact that one’s loud or vacuous cell phone conversation is just plain disturbing to everyone else on that crowded bus.
E-mail, Blackberrys or other texting mechanisms have an addictive power: “I sent that 10 minutes ago; why didn’t he answer? Maybe my boss is looking for me, I had better check.” The speed with which messages travel often carries a pressure to respond immediately, regardless of whether the matter is actually urgent. The other day I caught myself as I was writing a message received only 24-hours before: “I am sorry that it has taken me forever to respond.”
On a deeper level, the fact of being constantly hooked up to a keyboard or device makes us think that we are communicating, but what we actually say to each other often remains on a fairly superficial or banal level, leaving us with a nagging sense of loneliness and isolation. What is the point of having the rest of the Facebook world focus on the fact that I am ironing my socks? Is this really the right forum to work through my struggles with a serious illness in my family?
Disagreements and misunderstandings are often generated because as we type or text in ways that would otherwise be analogous to in-person conversation, we cannot see the other’s face or read the body language that would have helped us to grasp the deeper dimension of how our words were actually being received. I would not have pressed “send” if I had realized sooner she was just not in the mood for that kind of humor. Emoticons aside, our hasty messages cannot always carry the intended tone, or express the full range of human emotions.
So, are the new means of communication good or bad? They are like any other tool that can be used as a vehicle for good, but also used in ways that corrode healthy relationships. I believe that the secret to maintaining their potential for goodness is to keep asking ourselves the question of whether the way in which we use these means is actually nourishing our relationships in an authentic way.
As my friends know well, I am not good with gadgets. I once spent a very long eight minutes trying to get a video started for a fairly large class, until one of my students suggested, “Have you turned on the power button?” But my work does lead me to spend quite a bit of time on e-mail and some time with a blog of other Catholic law professors.
For me, the most valuable guide in keeping relationships at the forefront of my use of these means of communication has been to keep the children’s Cube of Love right in front of my computer. The six sides of the cube show points from Chiara Lubich’s Art of Loving, a way to help children (and adults!) put the Gospel message of love into practice, counteracting violence and building peace. Each morning kids roll the cube to see what to focus on.
“I love Jesus in the other” has often served as a reminder of the presence of God in all of my conversation partners, including those not present on that actual e-mail, including those who are the topic of my blogging.
Similarly, “I love everyone” has at times become “including those who are not online” — reminding me to not get so caught up in the e-mail or online world that I lose track of the people who are right next to me, perhaps in the same office, perhaps waiting for an in-person conversation in the hall, on the phone, or during a real lunch break away from the computer.
“I share the other’s joy or hurt” is an invitation to take a breath before I press “send”: how will this message or blog sound in the ears and heart of the other? Do I even understand enough about what this person is living to be sensitive to how they will receive this message, or do I need to take the time to listen more, perhaps with other means of communication, before jumping in with my own message?
A few times — especially during political campaign season — I have found myself in the midst of an
online misunderstanding or a heated exchange. “I love my enemy” has been a powerful reminder to give the other the benefit of the doubt and to interpret the message with a more generous read.
I remember an exchange where “I’m the first to love,” became “I’m the first to stop typing” — in order to pick up the phone to suggest to my friend that we find a time when we could finish the discussion in person. Just saying, “Let’s stop” provoked a moment of serious reflection for both of us, in which we asked ourselves, “How is it that we can become so nasty when we are typing?” The following week my friend walked into my office with a hug and a chocolate bar: “This is a peace offering, I am sorry for being intemperate.” I pulled out some homemade chocolate chip cookies, saying, “I am sorry, too.” Our conversation took a completely different turn. We did not agree on everything, but our friendship survived the election season and beyond.
“We love one another” is a reminder that authentic relationships take multi-faceted work. While new media can at times prove to be valuable tools to strengthen our relationships, that work can never be placed on automatic pilot. We will always need to roll up our sleeves in order to pay close attention to what kind of interaction might help to truly nurture open communication in a given moment. It could be an e-mail or brief text message. It could be a snail mail card. It might mean finding the time to be physically together so that we might experience in a more tangible way how we can be for each other an open listening presence of love.
If mutual love is at the focal point of these choices, then using new media will undoubtedly be illuminated by love, and will serve as a powerful tool to build unity in all of our relationships and in the world around us.
Amy Uelmen is the director of the Fordham Law School Institute on Religion, Law & Lawyer’s Work and a participant in the “Mirror of Justice” blog of Catholic law professors.
To learn more about the Cube of Love Click here!
Share on Facebook. Click here!









© 2012 by the Focolare Movement (New York)