Rome, Italy, Oct 5, 2017 / 12:19 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The head of Microsoft’s office for online safety has said the Catholic Church is a key ally in the ongoing effort to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation online.
When asked why a major tech company would partner with the Catholic Church on such an important issue, Jacqueline Beauchere, Chief Online Safety Officer for Microsoft Inc., had a simple response: “why not?”
Beauchere spoke during an Oct. 3-6 conference on Child Dignity in the Digital World, addressing the topic of “How Do Internet Providers and Software Developers Define Their Responsibility and Limits of Cooperation Regarding Safeguarding of Minors.”
Speaking with a small group of journalists at the conference, Beauchere said, “why would you not take advantage of such a huge platform and such a huge array of people to make aware of the situation?”
Beauchere said she is willing to collaborate with “anyone who wants to talk about these issues,” because “we all can learn from one another. And the only way we’re going to get better, the only way we’re going to do and learn more is to really expand the dialogue.”
She also spoke on what future steps and investments technology companies can make in helping to fight online child exploitation, and action-points for the future, including some highlights from a joint-declaration from conference participants that will be presented to Pope Francis in an audience tomorrow.
Beauchere was one of two representatives of major tech organizations present at the conference, the other being Dr. Antigone Davies, Head of Global Safety Policy for Facebook.
Organized by the Pontifical Gregorian University’s Center for Child Protection in collaboration with the UK-based global alliance WePROTECT and the organization “Telefono Azzurro,” which is the first Italian helpline for children at risk.
Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin opened the conference as a keynote speaker. Other participants in the congress include social scientists, civic leaders, and religious representatives. Discussion points include prevention of abuse, pornography, the responsibility of internet providers and the media, and ethical governance.
Please read below for excerpts of Beauchere’s conversation with journalists:
Thank you for your time. It was very interesting to hear what Microsoft is doing to combat this issue. But many speakers that followed you said that more could be done as far as investments and money being put into helping in NGOs that are working to help in this issue, and technologies that can be put into fighting this issue. What is your response? What can be done in the future to address this call to action?
I would say the biggest room in the world is the room for improvement, and we can all do more. We can all do better. We just have to determine what is going to be the best root to direct our resources. So we come at the at the problem from a technology perspective, from an internal governance perspective with policies and standards and procedures, with education and with partnerships. We are already supporting a number of organizations, which I noted in my remarks. We are on the board for the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children, I personally sit on the board of the WeProtect organization. I sit on the board of the In Hope organization, I used to sit on the board, now another colleague does, of the Technology Coalition. That’s all technologies coming together to come up with technical solutions, other operational means, to alleviate the problem. So there are many things we are dong, it’s a question of we have so precious few resources – we’re given budgets like every one ounce. We don’t get an unlimited pot of money, so we have to decide where are we going to put our efforts and what is going to deliver the most bang for the buck.
And where do you see this money being used most importantly?
I think efforts like this that really bring together a multitude of stakeholders. As I said, technology companies work together. Sometimes I feel like I work and talk to Twitter and Google and YouTube and Facebook more so in a week than I do with my own colleagues at Microsoft, so we’re always working together. Civil society works together. Academia works together. Government works together. But now we need to bring all of those stakeholders together. WeProtect started that effort, but I could say that there are really only four stakeholder groups there: that would be the technology companies, governments, law enforcement and civil society. But now with this world congress we’re expanding to include the Church and faith-based organizations, to include a broader array of academics, to include the public health sector. Now, with more people it could sometimes present a little bit more conflict, or hiccups or hurdles that we’re going to have to get over, but we’re going to have to find a way that we’re all going to have to agree on certain things, and then build from there.
On a practical level, you’ve spoken about all the boards and committees that you are a part of, and it’s really important to be a part of that conversation, but if you were going to tell me now where you are going to allocate your resources next as the frontier of where to fight this issue, where do you see the challenges and problems? Where should that money be allocated?
It has to be invested in technology. But technology investments don’t pay off immediately, they take time. So a lot of people are asking, ‘can’t you just invent a technology that can determine that that’s a child sexual abuse image, and then it won’t be uploaded from the get-go?’ This is artificial intelligence, this is machine learning, it’s only been in recent years that we’ve been able to identify, via artificial intelligence and via machine learning, that a cat is a cat. So when you put in the complex scenarios of the parade of horribles that could happen to a child, and the different actors that are involved in those scenarios and the different body parts, and the different scenes and places where things could happen as far as these crimes, you’re adding so much more complexity. So there’s a lot of work. These technology investments are not going to pay off immediately. I think people look at technology and they think it’s a silver bullet, they think that technology created these problems, so technology should fix them. Number one, technology didn’t create these problems, and number two, technology alone cannot solve them. So technology investments are key, but they’re not going to pay off immediately. So these kinds of efforts that are multi-party, multi-focused, multi-pronged and faceted, that’s where we need to put our efforts and I think the money will follow. The money will follow what proves the most successful or will at least show the most promise.
In terms of investment, many of the speakers addressed or were from areas of the world that are not as developed in technology, but are starting to gain access to the internet and don’t have the background or the education about what it can do. In terms of investment, do you guys have plans to address this issue in some of these nations that are not as developed?
We have educational and awareness raising resources available everywhere. Personally I see the developing world as an opportunity. Yes they are gaining access to technology quicker, but they have the ability to learn from the Western world and the mistakes that we made, and they have the ability and the opportunity to do things right from the ground up. They just can’t let the technology get ahead of them, they have to really incorporate the learning and the awareness raising and some of the good, healthy practices and habits, developing those habits for going online and keeping oneself and one’s family safe. But I see it as more of an opportunity than as a problem.
You mentioned that you are also trying to broaden your network of allies in fighting this issue, so why broaden it to faith-based organizations, why come to a Jesuit university to participate in this conference?
I say why not? Why would you not take advantage of such a huge platform and such a huge array of people to make aware of the situation. These are very difficult conversations to have. People don’t want, whether it’s people in government or elsewhere, they don’t want to acknowledge that these issues exist. It’s a very delicate topic, it’s a very sensitive topic, in some instances it’s taboo, so it’s been very refreshing to have a new outlet, to have a new audience, to potentially involve new stakeholders, and to see how people are coming to the issue and addressing it very directly, and very head-on, and being very open and transparent about what’s happening in their countries, and about how serious these situations and these issues are. So I will collaborate, I will work with anyone who wants to talk about these issues, we all can learn from one another. And the only way we’re going to get better, the only way we’re going to do and learn more is to really expand the dialogue.
You mentioned that a lot of people say that it’s all technology’s fault. So what can technology do to help in the issue and what should people perhaps take into their own hands?
People need to own their own presence online and they need to know what they are doing. They need to safeguard their own reputation. So there are certain habits and practices that they could develop, we offer a wealth of materials on our website. One thing I want to point out about people and their own learning is sometimes, unfortunately, that leaning comes a little bit too late. We were discussing this in my workshop. It’s been my experience that what drives people to action, and I’m talking about pro-action, is something bad happening to them. Their identity has been stolen, so now I need to go figure out how to protect myself from identity theft. A child’s been bullied, now I need to go figure out what’s been happening with online bullying. Unfortunately we want to galvanize people and rally them to take some proactive steps to safeguard their reputations, to know who and with whom they are talking, to know what they are sharing online, to be discreet where discretion is warranted. That’s not suppressing the kinds of engagements, and connections and interactions they want to have, but that’s doing so with eyes wide open, and that’s doing so with a healthy dose of reality and of what could potentially go wrong and of being aware of risks. I know there was a first part to your question…
What can technology do when it comes to this issue, but what are it’s limits?
Well technology can always help, and we tell people to get help from technology. So technology can help determine for instance, what parents want their kids to see online, what websites they want them to go to, who they want them to communicate with. Some people call them “family controls,” at Microsoft we call them “family safety settings.” And they’re right there in your Windows operating system, in your Xbox live console, so that is our obligation, that is our obligation as a technology company, t put those kinds of tools and resources into the product itself to help people, and to give them the tools they need to better educate themselves, make them aware of these issues, and to hopefully get them to want to teach others, to inform others. So it very much is a multi-stakeholder issue, it’s everyone’s problem and it’s everyone’s opportunity.
Are you going to the meeting with Pope Francis tomorrow?
Absolutely. I wouldn’t miss it for the world.
Are you Catholic?
Yes, I am. I spoke with my priest before I came here, because I was a bit overwhelmed.
What do you expect from that meeting, what do you hope is going to come out of that meeting tomorrow with the Pope?
Well he’s going to be presented with this declaration, which is a series of commitments, or calls to action, for every stakeholder group who was present at this congress, and it has the ability to be monumental. I really hope there is a follow-up and follow-through, because I have attended things like this before, not of this magnitude, where everyone is so excited and so jazzed to take this forward, and there’s very little follow-up and follow-through, and I personally am someone who always wants to do more and to continue. I don’t sign up to anything, I don’t commit to anything unless I’m going to be fully in.
In many ways Pope Francis has helped put climate change and immigration into the minds of policy makers. Do you think he has the ability to put the protection of minors up there?
Of course, of course.
Some have said there is perhaps anti-Catholic, anti-religious sentiment in Silicon Valley. Will they listen to the Church on this?
Well, we’re not in Silicon Valley, so I can’t attest to what’s going on in Silicon Valley, but I personally don’t see it. When I told my manager, my boss, that I had the ability to come here, he said, ‘get me an invitation, too.’ That was very wonderful to hear, and I did get him an invitation, but unfortunately he changed roles and he didn’t think it was particularly relevant for him to come and though that since he’s not in the same role perhaps he should not. So I’m the only one here for Microsoft, but I’m here.
[…]
There it is again, ‘Mal’.
Where is Francis?
I know Ramjet, it is big news in many Catholic websites.
However, this is not in keeping with the agenda put forward by Pope Francis. He has made it clear that the discussions should be about Church structure and how best we could evangelize in today’s world.
Also remember this: lots of topics might be discussed by different organizations all over the world, including the non-western members of our ever-increasing Church. What is important is what is finally proclaimed by the Pope.
The article states: “These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.” Is this not what the Church teaches?
What are you missing here? You quote the article in your final sentence, yet that is not what the German Synodal Way calls for, rather 7 demands are made that the Church “must” change her teaching, that Church Doctrine “need to be revised on the basis of theological and human-scientific findings.” That is inconsistent with your quote “… if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
Add to that, the “…basis of theological and human-scientific findings” which is rolled out is smoke. There are no theological and scientific findings that support
adherence to the 7 demands called for by the Synodal drafters.
Just think about it — the parallel to demands made in the USA these days on the same basis, namely, theological and scientific findings. It is just so much smoke for managers (politician, doctors and law makers) to either dismiss what is Catholic Doctrine or to impose unjust laws.
What no one who supports this German “synodal way” that demands the Church change its teaching is, what are the “theological and scientific” findings that it is OK to be LGBQT+ and that the Holy Catholic Church needs to change our/its teaching. Where is the Theological support for this? From Theologians and Religious who TELL us that it is LGBQT+ is “normal and acceptable in todays secular world? What is the scientific support or proof that this is OK? Did God create these people this way so therefore it is our “responsibility” to change the Teaching that the acts of LGBQT+ and their incessant demand that we approve of those acts is “just and God’s will”? If this is OK why not approve of “sexual abuse”, what about infidelity in marriage, what about it is ok for sex anytime with anyone you like? None of the German Synodal way demands are valid nor are they supported by “findings” of any kind; simply stated they are required by the need to “be up to date with a God-less secular society’s requirements.
Ramjet, here is another article which exposes the deep divisions in the German Church. Here we see that Pope Francis publicly received a document from a delegation of German Catholics who attended his regular weekly public audience, who oppose the group of Bishops seeking to control the discussions. https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=53442
We are tutored: “What is important is what is finally proclaimed by the Pope.” Yes, if all goes well, but the question for some, however, is whether Pope Francis will proclaim anything at all?
Some questions:
FIRST, will the Holy Father exercise his option to remain silent as he has with the dubia? Nothing proclaimed and nothing rejected? In a relevant interview (posted somewhere on CWR), Cardinal Grech, General Secretary for the Synod, recently speculated on whether (problematic) results from the continental synods might first have to be recirculated back to their originators? Then what? An unresolved and evolving federation of continental/synodal churches? He also expressed present uncertainty (this is my memory) what to do if matters of doctrine were contested (surely as already with Germany).
SECOND, would the unresolved packages then remain in play? And might some simply default into the attitude that the “endless process” of synodality IS the end product? A “symphony,” or a possible cacophony of parts? And, would this possible incoherence—-the synodal process itself—-finally posture itself as the needed unanimity for sensus fidei, simply/simplistically because everyone had participated?
THIRD, does all of the above boil down to the future role of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and how this office might fit with the awaited new super-dicastery for Evangelization? Does the lowest common denominator become the new Tradition—-generic Christianity?
FOURTH, this trajectory…an extrapolation beyond even what Martin Luther had in mind when he affirmed the Creed, surely, but diluted Tradition and the communal sacrifice of the Mass into only a communion within an assembly? Along the way, why are priests—-acting in persona Christi—-neutered into replaceable “presiders,” and now in the synodal process itself, why are bishops—-the successors of the apostles who are accountable for at least the Deposit of Faith—-to function “primarily as facilitators” (the Vademecum)?
IN SHORT, the infiltrating (!) novelties of the German “synodal way,” How, When, and by Whom will such blood-sucking leaches be peeled off from the Eucharistic and Mystical Body of Christ?
Synodality: “Communion, Participation, Mission”…Quo vadis? Just askin’…
Thank you. Real freedom is Freedom from sin. The Bible is very clear on the subject. Anyways our short life on earth is to Love and Serve God in this life and be happy with Our Lord in the next. We are not here to please ourselves. The Ten Comandments are written in stone, and are commands not suggestions. Nevertheless we are free to choose not change.
The organizers of the dissatisfied church-of-one-sown in Germany cherry-pick one sentence from the Catechism of the Catholic Church relating to prevalence of persons with homosexual tendency. They accept one sentence but denounce the next which asserts the homosexual tendency is ‘OBJECTIVELY DISORDERED.’
They claim that Christ’s bride defames. Why not leave it? They claim that Christ’s bride is outdated. What age should she be?? Why not join the hordes of heretics, apostates, and schismatics throughout history who’ve who said same? Why is your claim to entitlement special or unique to keep you ‘members’ of Christ’s Mystical Body?
Do you really believe that staying within the Church while spouting such sin will bring Christ or His family to “know” and “love” you on Judgment Day? Why stay in a Church which gives such offense? Why not create your own personal made-to-order misery-loves-company club?
If I were Christ and the info in this article appeared in my face, spit would fly.
The title of the Synodal forum was: “Living in Successful Relationships.:”
That title is a dead give-away.
One of Pope Francis’s favourite theologians – Prof. Dr. Anne-Marie Pelletier – at the time of the Synod on the Family said that in our enlightened age we must accept ‘successive fidelities’. In other words serial adultery. Cardinal Marx was there listening to her. I suspect these have now become successful relationships of the successive kind.
More of the same. Surprise, surprise.
We read: “Because with the Synodal Way, we learn to understand more deeply that sexual orientation and gender identity are part of the person…” And, yet, those outside of the synodal-way bubble are less well-groomed in these matters. A partial sampling:
FIRST, one recent study of two hundred peer-reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity: The conclusion: scientific evidence does not support the popular notion that “gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex” (Mayer/McHugh, The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society, Ethics and Public Policy Center, No. 50, Fall 2016).
SECOND, research into the human genome: https://news.yahoo.com/no-gay-gene-study-finds-180220669.html
THIRD, if you say it often enough (synodally!), then it must be so: A recent study completed at University College London (using MRI technology) strongly implies that a habit of lying tends to suppress the part of the brain (the amygdala) that responds emotionally to a “slippery slope” pattern of small and then larger lies (Garrett/Ariely/ Laxxaro, Nature Neuroscience Journal, October 24, 2016; reported by Erica Goode, New York Times, October 25, 2016).
FOURTH, just because the pope says “God made you that way,” doesn’t make it so. Instead, there’s this from some layman named St. Thomas More, in a play having more credibility than the script now being acted out in Germany: “Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it? No, I will not sign” (Robert Bolt, “A Man [!] for All Seasons”).
QUESTION: By what pretense is sex first reversed front to back, and then the world turned upside down top-to-bottom, by a handful of imposter bishops? ANSWER: Luther approved the bigamy of Philip of Hesse, and after five centuries this one thingy leadeth to another, and another!
The German Church reminds me of King Solomon’s foreign wives.
So marriage is not about children or families after all.
It’s really all about orgasms.
Hmnh.
“I demand” that Herr Dieser and Herr Hesse be excommunicated, along with all of the Bishops, priests and laymen involved in the German sexual perversion apostasy.
“I also demand” that the Vatican City-State renounce all money flowing from all German dioceses.
Those are my “demands.”
I’m with you.
Brineyman above – that’s it in a nutshell.
Yep. Nuts protected by a shell of a church.
The German Church, barring a few faithful remnants, has become a gangrenous limb of the universal Catholic Church that needs to be amputated to save the body.
Absolutely spot on. It is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body.
Pope Pius X had it right in 1910 when he stated in his Apostolic Mandate that “Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross.”
A moral posture in Germany’s Synodal Way, and in Germany reflects similar Vatican developments that likely account for Pope Francis’ silence. This is the increasing acceptance of [stable] adult homosexual relationships. It may also account for a diminished CDR within Curial structure eminence now placed with Propaganda Fides. As well as: The appointment as prefect Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle who is empathetic to such relationships. The appointment by Francis to executive positions of personnel with similar leanings Fr James Martin appointed to the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communications.
Origins for this development can be traced to Persona Humana 1975. “A distinction is drawn [with] homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable. People [who] conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage. These homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence” (Persona VIII).
Although corrections were made since insofar as treating adult homosexuality as a [moral] disorder the question under apparent revision is whether it is a disorder and not a behavior inherent to the person. It is in this writer’s estimate the moral Rubicon of the day. Crossing this long held impasse would subject all moral doctrine to modification determined not by the tradition rather by the current acceptability.
This is not Catholic, if they want to change Catholic doctrine, they should break off and start their own church.
That’s already been done. I refer you to the Protestant Reformation and the tens of thousands of Christian denominations that have sprouted from it’s root. They want to drag the Catholic Church down that same path.
A telling postscript to my comment is what’s happening in our seminaries, “With a rise in social acceptance of gender-reassignment procedures, some U.S. seminaries have already been forced to deal with applicants who identify as men but are biologically women — and bishops and seminary formators have been warned to prepare for a potential increase in the number of such cases” (Ann Schneible NatCR). Will Francis intervene and declare our sovereignty as a Church or will he be silent?
If Francis is as Francis has done, our questions need no asking. O woe are we of little listening ears of hearts of little love, left to reign in rigid rules and rituals and rubrics and liturgies and mouthing of pieties and casuistries like vipers and bones of whitewashed sepulchral Pharisees. There is no room on the road, the newly reformed, remade, revised, re-paved broad swath of a path. The invited include Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, pagans, secularists, atheists, agnostics, apostates, sinners against God and nature, and vaccinated abortifacts. We arrived sans wedding garment.
What’s bound on earth is bound in heaven; a certain set of keys have SPOKEN, and we have LISTENED.
Thank God for His salvation outside which all else means nothing.
I pray and hope that transsexual females are not in any seminary! Do you know of any and which ones, if I may ask?
I’m a simple man. Genesis said that God created man and woman. That’s it…two…binary…genders/sexes/human forms or whatever you want to call it. When God saw that Adam needed a mate/partner…he didn’t say, “Adam…meet Bob.” He pulled out a rib out of Adam and crafted Eve, a woman. The Catholic Church in Germany specifically and Europe in general (as well as America) is essentially lost. Don’t forget that it was a German (Luther) who begat the “reformation” which now has how many ten’s of thousands of Christian denominations? Don’t forget that it was Germany who begat Pope (emeritus) Benedict XVI. The last Pope to abdicate was Pope Gregory XII who, ironically, abdicated in 1415 to resolve the Western schism with the Antipope in Avignon, Benedict XIII. What did Pope Benedict XVI’s abdication resolve?
We hear a lot about the Pharisees. Especially the story of the Pharisee and the publican. As I recall the Pharisee was the proud one and the publican was humbly asking for mercy and was not trying to whitewash his sins. In the modern world who has created pride movements, and expected the Church to embrace and fly pride banners/flags celebrating their lifestyle? Many of today’s sinners have the pride of the Pharisee and the lifestyle of the publican. The Good Thief on the Cross was very public about owning up to what he had done and publicly defended Christ. In the modern Church one wonders how many kindred spirits the Good Thief would find. Would he die of loneliness?
“The basic message of the Church is God’s unconditional love for all people — in their diversity and uniqueness. This must also apply to all relationships, provided they are based on love and mutual respect,” he commented.
This is partly true because we are asked to love the sinner but not the sin. Yes, it is people we love and not necessarily their deeds. In fact, if their deeds are sinful then they need to be rejected.
So, respecting relationships also must be in keeping with this call from our Lord. If a relationship is unnatural or sinful, it is not to be “loved”.
So, the last sentence in this Bishop’s quote should really read: “This must also apply to all relationships, provided they are based on love and mutual respect and God’s eternal natural law embedded in humans”.
The LGBTQAI+ is a political group with political ambitions and goals. Being recognized as a type of separate race or gender(s) is a means of piggy-backing onto civil rights legislation that overreaches its original intent. It’s a power play. The “I” (Intersex) in this ever expanding list of letters is the latest addition, it’s been appropriated for selfish means, and of all the letters it’s the only one with a factual genetic basis. I explore both these themes in these two Blog Posts.
https://humanlifereview.com/identity-alphabet-soup/
https://humanlifereview.com/life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-ridiculous/
Thank you. Real freedom is Freedom from sin. The Bible is very clear on the subject. Anyways our short life on earth is to Love and Serve God in this life and be happy with Our Lord in the next. We are not here to please ourselves. The Ten Comandments are written in stone, and are commands not suggestions. Nevertheless we are free to choose not change.