Denver, Colo., Jun 23, 2017 / 03:22 am (CNA/EWTN News).- If a recent Vanity Fair issue is to be believed, there’s some disheartening news for single people: the “dating apocalypse,” brought on by wildly popular dating apps like “Tinder,” is upon us.
Young singles are too busy swiping left and right on their phones making shallow, transient connections, rather than finding real love with real people. Romance is dead, proposes author Nancy Jo Sales, in the September 2015 issue of the publication.
What sets Tinder apart from most other dating app or online dating experiences is speed and brevity. Based on a photo, first name, and age alone, users decide whether to swipe left (to pass) or right (to like). With GPS tracking, the app also tells users exactly how far away potential matches may be, making life even easier for those just looking for a quick hook-up.
Shallowest dating app ever?
The biggest criticism of Tinder? It’s a seriously shallow app that turns people into quickly-judged commodities on a screen.
In a 2013 article by The Guardian, “Tinder: the shallowest dating app ever?” author Pete Cashmore explains the ick-factor, yet addictiveness, of Tinder when compared to another dating app called Twine.
“Of the two apps, though, Tinder sounded worse, just because it seemed so contemptuously superficial. There are hundreds upon thousands of women, about whom you know almost nothing, and you snap-appraise them with a single swipe. It’s a finger-flicking hymn to the instant gratification of the smartphone age. It’s addictive.”
Matt Fradd is a Catholic speaker and author and founder of The Porn Effect, a website with a mission to “expose the reality behind the fantasy of pornography and to equip individuals to find freedom from it.” In his ministry, he’s heard a lot of stories from young people about their struggle to overcome objectifying people through porn.
Fradd had some harsh words for Tinder.
“Tinder exists for those who would rather not purchase a prostitute,” he told CNA.
“I would imagine most people who use that app aren’t there because they’re looking for a chaste relationship,” he added.
And indeed, quite a bit of colloquial evidence backs him up. Alex in the Vanity Fair article said dating apps have turned romance into a competition of “Who’s slept with the best, hottest girls?”
“You could talk to two or three girls at a bar and pick the best one, or you can swipe a couple hundred people a day—the sample size is so much larger,” he said. “It’s setting up two or three Tinder dates a week and, chances are, sleeping with all of them, so you could rack up 100 girls you’ve slept with in a year.”
But Tinder doesn’t always have to be that way, users argue. It is possible to find people on the app who want to go on some good old-fashioned dates.
Tinder users speak
Ross is a twenty-something Nebraska-to-New York City transplant and a cradle Catholic who’s used his fair share of both dating apps and sites. When signing up for Tinder, Ross said, probably the most important factor in whether someone will find potential dates or hook-ups is location, location, location.
“Your region matters so much,” he told CNA in an e-mail interview. “In Nebraska, women date on Tinder. They really do… In New York, (most) want a distraction, attention, and/or a hook up. Not emotion or connections.”
Holly, a twenty-something devout Catholic living in Kansas City, said she has had success finding a date – and a pretty decent one at that – on the app.
“I went on a great Tinder date. Granted it was the only Tinder date, but we even went out a few times before things ended. At the time Tinder sort of freaked me out, but I decided to jump in head first and it was an enjoyable experience over all,” she said.
Many young people who’ve used Tinder also argue that the “shallow” critique is a bit overblown, considering that dating always takes into account whether or not a potential mate is physically attractive.
“How is me swiping right on a guy that I find attractive, and swiping left (on those) that I’m not that into any different than someone approaching a guy that I find attractive in a bar? We make snap judgements all the time. Why is it suddenly so much worse if I’m doing it online?” asked Michelle, a twenty-something practicing Catholic who lives in Chicago.
While she’s definitely experienced the creepier side of Tinder – with guys sending her “rankings” on a scale of 1 to 10 and other, um, less-than-endearing messages, she said she found the app could be used as a way to maybe meet some new people in person and to get recommendations of things to do in the city.
“I think to immediately classify Tinder or any other dating app as a ‘hook-up’ app or as a very bad thing goes against the idea that things are morally neutral,” Michelle said. “Just like alcohol is not inherently bad but can be used for evil, I don’t think Tinder is inherently evil as well. I definitely think you can use Tinder if you’re using it to meet people – not to hook up with people.”
The morality of Tinder
It’s admittedly a bit difficult to find someone who can speak with moral authority specifically to dating apps in the Catholic world. Because of the very recent explosion of smartphones, followed by the subsequent explosion of dating apps, or because of vows of celibacy, many clergy and moral experts have actually never used dating apps themselves.
Fr. Gregory Plow, T.O.R., falls into that category. Even though he’s a young priest and friar who’s never used Tinder, Fr. Plow works with hundreds of young people every day as the director of Households at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio (kind of like Greek houses, but faith-based).
Fr. Plow said when Catholics determine the morality of any act or tool, like Tinder, three things must be considered.
“Whenever discerning the morality of an act not explicitly defined by Church teaching, we must examine the object, the intention, and the circumstances,” he said, referencing paragraph 1757 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
“Regarding the ‘object,’ apps – in general, as an invention – are not bad in and of themselves. Like most other technologies, they are morally neutral in and of themselves,” he said. “Apps do, however, possess a certainly quality of being transitory that can factor in to the other two components (intention and circumstances) that factor in to judging the morality of an act.”
The transitory, cursory nature of swiping based on one picture in Tinder can be morally dangerous if that same mentality transfers to relationships with people, he said. Instead of pausing and taking the time to form real relationships, some people may decide to move on to the next best thing because they have so many options.
“Therefore, in as much dating apps are impersonal and transitory, or are used with the intention for receiving gratification and pleasure, they are immoral,” he said. “If, however, online dating apps or services assisting people in leading them to find another person to share the love of God with in the uniqueness of a dating relationship or marriage, it can be (morally) good.”
Mary Beth Bonacci, a Catholic speaker and author on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, said what’s concerning about Tinder when compared to online dating sites such as CatholicMatch is the rapidity with which people can be turned into objects.
“The entire realm of dating is full of opportunities to turn a human person into a commodity. We get so wrapped up in thinking about what we want for ourselves that we forget we are dealing with another human person – and image and likeness of God. It’s always been a temptation,” she said.
“But the rapid-fire nature of Tinder’s ‘scan and swipe’ makes it easy to turn many, many human persons into commodities in a short period of time. That is what is scariest to me.”
Bonacci said while it’s possible to find someone who’s interested in a virtuous dating relationship through apps like Tinder, the chances of that happening are probably pretty low when compared with online dating sites that have more extensive profiles.
Meeting someone in person as soon as possible is also key, she said, in determining whether or not a match made online or in an app has a chance of turning into a dating relationship. But apps like Tinder aren’t exactly helping breathe new life into romance, she said.
“Everything is instant. The nearly-anonymous sex is of course the antithesis of anything romantic or respectful. In the old days of the ‘meat market’ singles’ bar, a person had to get dressed up, leave the house, buy a few drinks and at least pretend to have some real interest in the other person.”
The Church has a duty, she said, to offer young people better alternatives in the dating world than the instant gratification that they find in the current culture.
“The Vanity Fair article reminded me once again that we have to offer teens and young adults an alternative to the degrading, hook up world that surrounds them. We can’t scare them out of it. They need to be inspired, to fall in love with the real beauty of the Christian vision of human sexual morality,” she said.
“They need to see their own dignity, their own importance, and how respecting their bodies and the beautiful language of human sexuality is the only way to finding real love. We have to. We can’t allow another generation of kids to fall into this cesspool.”
This article was originally published on CNA Sept. 13, 2015.
[…]
How can one respect a heretic?
Perhaps the same way that Christ respected the Pharisees and priests of his day when He called the whited sepulchers, children of father of lies, congregation of the devil…. (and they weren’t even attempting to justify the that sin of which this whole issue is about)
Re: “the same way that Christ respected the Pharisees . . . ”
It seems to me that perhaps one would need the discernment of Christ to feel secure in making a call like that w/r/t our contemporaries. I think Abp. Chaput makes a good point – – address the ideas, leave the personal vitriol aside (hey, one could even offer the lack of vitriol as a sacrifice).
if it walks like a duck, it probably isn’t a cow.
You might have missed the point of Abp. Chaput’s remarks.
With all due respect to the archbishop, he has demonstrated that he is a culture warrior in his own right in hi attempt to justify and defend Fr. Martin’s obvious undermining of Catholic teachings on homosexuality – where he does not overtly defy it.
I have yet to see any examples of the vitriol which Chaput and Bishop McElroy refer (the latter is himself guilty of the very claim he makes about others). No quotes have been offered.
Both Church Militant – not always my favorite – and Lepanto Institute use language which once was quite the norm for ecclesial leaders when calling out renegades like Fr. Martin, who serves better as an apologist for homosexuality in general and a shill for its normalization in the Church.
Today, the Church lacks shepherds with spine. It is disappointing to see Archbishop Chaput join the Amen chorus in the left corner condemning those who are doing his job. The appropriate behavior for Fr. Martin’s bishop is to silence him, but all he has dene is to order him to not reveal his own sexuality. This act, of course, has outed Fr. Martin completely, when before there was only uncertainty.
If by your self-serving reference to our human difficulties in attaining the discernment of Christ you mean we should eschew tough language, I’m afraid you are contradicted not only by several saints but also by loads of scripture.
Our bishops today are faint of heart and weak-minded. Study the Church Fathers and their saintly contemporaries who blistered both straying clergy and laity alike with the truth, and would turn their wrath upon those like you for your failure to stand for that truth.
The caterwauling we are hearing (and it is a revelation about Chaput) is the reaction of timid bishops to seeing what saintliness in action against those who would pour drops of poison into the waters of the Church.
Quote: “Father Martin is a man of intellect and skill”
One wonders really when he says things like the teaching of the Church not being received hence not binding.
Does that display intellect and skill? Or the devil’s own craftiness.
I love the way faithful Catholics will not avoid the reality of life, and will not back down from a religious fight, no matter the title of the person they are addressing. For myself, I like to maintain the intellectual purity of the argument, so that people arguing with me cannot say, “But you said…” I prefer merely presenting relevant Church documents having the greatest theological authority as my “argument.” That way, the argument is not “mine”, but belongs to the Church’s tradition and the Church’s own authority.
With all due respect, pretending that the enemy’s motives are pure is always the best thing to do. Pretending that Fr. Martin (or Pope Francis) isn’t trying to move the church away from it’s mission might make one feel good about oneself, but doesn’t help.
“The perceived ambiguities in some of Fr. Martin’s views on sexuality have created much of the apprehension and criticism surrounding his book”. There are errors, dangerous errors to the faith that contribute to the loss of souls. Not simply ambiguities in Fr Martin’s book. What is far more deadly to the salvation of all souls is not the “vitriol”. It’s the amelioration of heresy and unwillingness of our prelates to voice the truth.
Exactly. I have great respect for Archbishop Chaput, but I disagree with the position, as stated in the article, he might be taking on the Fr. Martin debacle.
The Church and its ministers must be faithful to the Gospel. We take that solemn oath at ordination. Fr. Martin’s positions and the deceptiveness of his arguments must be called to correction and possible punitive action should he not be properly responsive…that is the duty of the shepherds. The faithful see no evidence of that happening. On the contrary they see his advancement! Failure to address the false teaching clearly leaves the faithful feeling powerless as misdirection and error is not corrected. Psychologically speaking, why would we not expect some amount of vitriol?
Fr. Martin needs correction. Failure on the part of the shepherds to not address the errors is to the detriment of the Church and the Gospel.
Difficult this.
Given his obvious intelligence, what are the options? He really and truly does not support Catholic teaching in his heart, he begrudgingly does so but also works to mute it as much as possible, or his take on the Catholic moral code is so different I find it unrecognizable. None of these options lend themselves to mad respect.
Not to mention Martin’s embrace of spin tactics worthy of political parties versus churchmen.
Especially for those who believe homosexuality, while not a malicious orientation or sin, interesects with matters of grave sin …
Fr. Martin stubbornly providing confusing moral guidance. That is nothing to respect.
Look, people. This ain’t hard. Jesus calls us to love our enemies. It’s that simple directive that makes us different than pagans. Pagans would jump on a heretic and beat him to death. Christians don’t do that sort of thing. Chaput has it right. Everyone deserves his due, and God demands that we respect what is good in each man, even if we disagree with him. Now, we can have some self discipline, and be real Christians, and be respectful of someone like Father James Martin even when he is in the wrong. He has written some books previous to this that have brought people to Christ. Now, he is making huge mistakes now and he is saying some very stupid things. But he can be respectfully taken apart rhetorically, and put in his place, and it can be done in a nice civilized manner. The thing he wants most right now is for putative Christians to descend on him like a pack of dogs, so that he can whine and play the victim. The more respect and civility we show him, the easier it becomes to deal with him. He basically is destroying himself at this point, and the only thing that can save him is stupid moves that enable him to become a gay martyr. He has started panicking, and saying stupid thing after stupid thing. It seems that self destruction is built into him. Every move he has made in this controversy has made things worse for his cause. Don’t help him out by being unnecessarily unkind to the man. Even he can be redeemed, and who knows, in a year or two, he may see the error of his ways and turn around
Samton909, how do you know Martin is being disrespect. No quotes are offered – I suppose they must be so egregious they can’t reproduce them?
I don’t believe that without evidence.
Let’s not conflate disrespect with confrontation, with pushback. There’s nothing mealy-mouthed about this pushback, nor should there be.
To treat the responses he has legitimately brought upon himself as disrespect is a trick as old as the hills. It changes the subject. Please note the ecclesial claim of vitriol and disrespect comes on the heels of a host of cancellations of public appearances by Fr. Martin at Catholic venues.
Wow…LOL a lot of supposition as to motives, intention, etc.
I agree with you and grieve that one like Fr. Martin might be on the road to self-destruction professionally and personally with regard to reputation and, more importantly, salvation. I deeply hope for his repentant return and that of any other misleading teachers.
Basic human respect is a given to all human persons including enemies. At the same time, one cannot respect what is disrespectful. Fr. Martin has earned a certain disrespect due to his failure to teach authentically. No condemnation here, but a clear call to change-conversion.
We are still called upon by the Gospel to correct our brothers and sisters when they are in error. There is a formula for that in the New Testament. I am a purist about definitions, and I have my own definitions. For instance, “love” is to will and, when prudent, to work for the good of the other. “Good” is whatever God says is good. If I see something written by a person, I know that others will read it. If the other person’s writing contains something I think is in error, I must point that out so that others with not be led astray. However, I am subject to possible error, so as I wrote elsewhere, I prefer to use only authoritative Church statements as my argument. Hopefully people who read both the errant writing and my [hopefully] correct argument will recognize the validity of the Church’s teaching, and dissociate that from anyone’s opinion. When we wish to be wise, we should seek God’s will, since His will is perfect wisdom. I still respect the fact that faithful Catholics will support the Church’s consistent teaching, no matter who is presenting possibly contrary opinions.
There’s a YouTube video, referred to on The Catholic Thing. Fr. Martin is given an award by a lgbt activist group. In the Q&A, he is asked about the health risks in homoerotic sex. He literally takes the Obama pass: it’s above my pay grade, I don’t really know about that. I lived in New York in the 80s and 90s, by the end, everyone knew about the risks, they knew what was going on, including the Gay Mens Health Collective. Fr. Martin by his professed ignorance, puts gay men at risk. He also said that he does not preach Catholic sexual morality from the pulpit, only on an individual basis. Does his excellency Archbishop Chaput know these things? Are they not lies and refutation of Catholic moral teachings?
James Martin want respect but he does not show it to those who have been in the trench’s of the gay life style and have come out alive only by the grace of God. Just ask Joseph Sciambra.
Archbishop Chaput—I have been an admirer of yours, but I must say, you disappoint me greatly in this matter. There are some things that should inspire strong reactions and strong, plain talk, and Fr. Martin’s views fit the bill. It is unlikely that he even cares what people say.