Facebook threatening to delete accounts of Orthodox clergy

[prodromos]

http://usa.greekreporter.com/2015/04/11/facebook-threatens-to-delete-accounts-of-orthodox-clergy/

I'm sure many of you are already aware of this, but just in case you aren't, please sign the petition linked to in the above article.

Already, many Orthodox priests and monks (the few who use facebook) have had their accounts changed to their birth name and the title "Father" removed. Apparently it is fine to be "Rabbi", or "Imam on Facebook but "Father" is no longer permitted. It is also noteworthy that Facebook recently apologised to transgenders for reverting their accounts to their birth names, and now permits them to self identify as a different gender name.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have seen this, Lord have mercy. thank goodness something is being done!

 

[gzt]

I'm opposed to the "legal/birth name" policy (and how it works against people with unacceptable real names) but not terribly worked up over the idea of not accepting "Father" as part of a "name". And cf Bishop Tikhon's instructions on conventions, which in my reading would make it a little weird to be Fr Whatever as your "name" on a site: http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/misc/tikhon_writing_hierarch.htm

 

[~Anastasia~]

Signed a while back.

I personally find it useful to know who I'm speaking with - or at least who they claim to be. The designation of priest or monk means something (as well as deacon, nun, bishop, and even some identify as reader, prebytera, matushka, etc.). I can usually find out by going to their page and doing a little research, but it's so much nicer to just KNOW who to reply to as "Father" for the sake of respect.

It's still a little awkward for me that I made pretty good friends with someone and chatted with them quite a bit, and didn't realize until he posted some photos of receiving a cross in a ceremony that it must mean something ... and sometimes still I slip into a rather casual chatty mode that seems strange to share with an Archpriest.

 

[gzt]

I do agree that some way of indicating titles would be nice - I mean, forms I fill out all the time let me specify if I'm Mr, Dr, Capt, the Honorable, the Right Reverend, etc... so why can't facebook do that? It's nice to be able to know, for whatever person I've got on there, if I wanted to write them a formal letter, how I'm supposed to address it, you know? They could make it something you have to poke at to find if they really didn't want to show it by default. The current hack of putting something in your name is just that - a hack, and I understand why they want to disallow that.

 

[~Anastasia~]

That's a good point. And right now you have a few FrJames or other "workarounds" that allow it to still be in there. It would be IDEAL if FB would allow titles as something that could be input, and then selected if a person wanted their title to come up with their name.

Personally, I have old friends on there with names like IPlayFBGames Smith, and CuteCatVideos Allday, and other such names that I certainly HOPE are not their real names. I've seen some that include vulgarities. So it seems that FB isn't really cracking down on real names across the board. But not only that, some people might really HAVE strange names. Anyway ... FB isn't exactly the yellow pages. People can put in all their names in an alternate slot if they want to be found by elementary school friends and co-workers from 20 years ago ... or not, if they don't want to be. Why does FB have to dictate such things?

But I like your idea of a separate title field. That really would be ideal.

 

[All4Christ]

I believe the workarounds only work if Facebook hasn't flagged your account already.

The other problem is regarding those who don't go by their given name (i.e. Some monks). In fact, it may have been 30+ years since they went by that name. In cases like that - a title wouldn't help much, although that would help many.

 

[All4Christ]

I'm opposed to the "legal/birth name" policy (and how it works against people with unacceptable real names) but not terribly worked up over the idea of not accepting "Father" as part of a "name". And cf Bishop Tikhon's instructions on conventions, which in my reading would make it a little weird to be Fr Whatever as your "name" on a site: http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/misc/tikhon_writing_hierarch.htm

That is a good point, regarding the guidelines you posted (which still frustrates me that people who are given that honor should "request" that honor or be offended if it isn't given go them- despite it being very important that we do give them that honor - but that is neither here nor there). That said, since it is a standard for not everyone to call all Orthodox by the same title based on their rank, it does make it more complex. However, 90% of the people interacting with those priests would call them Father - so I don't really see it as a detrimental thing if they include that, as long as they are in agreement with those in higher ranks that their claim of 'father' is for the general public, not for those higher than them.

 

[gzt]

Part of the point of my bringing that up is not how one should address a priest, but rather how a priest addresses and signs himself.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I find the priests to be repeatedly not concerned about the issue, as a couple of times I've apologized for not addressing them properly. It is usually the friend of a priest who gets upset on their behalf, if anyone does.

I've not had occasion to disagree or argue with a priest there, but I would be distressed if that happened and I hadn't bothered to check and realize he was a priest.

(There are those who claim to be a priest, a monk, a bishop - I think one of each - among my "friends list" who I have serious doubts about their authenticity. I simply don't engage and disagree with what they are saying generally. If they are not clergy, then they are already lying. And if they are clergy, well, I don't think FB with an anonymous person from somewhere else is the way to address it. So far everything I've disagreed with seem to fit reasonably within that way of dealing with it.)

It's a bit complex. And to be honest, it's usually easier to determine from what people say, in serious discussion. I would guess right according to their claims about 90% of the time whether they are clergy/monastics or laity when there is theological discussion. But in casual comments it is near impossible to separate them most of the time. Priests are refreshingly like the rest of us in many ways.

 

[All4Christ]

Part of the point of my bringing that up is not how one should address a priest, but rather how a priest addresses and signs himself.

Agreed and understood.

And to clarify - I didn't mean to stir anything up; also, I will always want to address people with the proper respect. Anytime I have a reaction to that letter has nothing to do with a lack of wanting to respect our spiritual leaders.

On the topic of Facebook titles, I agree, Kylissa, that it would be awkward to have disagreed or argued with someone without knowing that they are a priest, bishop, etc.

 

[gzt]

I think people should work on developing a healthy level of non-clericalist sentiment.

 

[gzt]

(mind you, I don't mean anti-clericalist: St John Chrysostom says that if you meet a priest and an angel on the road, greet the priest first, and I think he's right)

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think people should work on developing a healthy level of non-clericalist sentiment.

I'm not exactly sure what that would look like. It makes me wonder if I'm "doing it right". Possibly not, lol.

I don't have much chance to interact with our parish priest, or other priests for that matter. I actually do a lot more interacting on FB.

If we are discussing something related to the Church, I try to remember to call them Father. If it's casual conversation, I generally don't. I try to be equally polite to everyone. I'm not thrilled about the idea of rebuking clergy. Generally I ask for clarification, and if I still disagree, I disengage. I find non-clergy to be often equally helpful and knowledgeable (though often not as practiced or careful at expressing their thoughts). Except monastics do tend to have insights particular to their experience.

But I'm not sure if that's even what you're talking about.

 

[Kristos]

If their policy is name must match birth certificate - fine - apply the policy to everyone equally.