Trust vs. Faith: How New Elites Fight For Souls Against Traditional Authorities

Church scandals do not subside even against the background of political turmoil. Or rather, in the light and spirit of this turmoil they are becoming increasingly grotesque. Among the latest circus-like tricks are the new Russian Spas na Trube cult (“Savior on the Pipe,” initiated by the Russian Orthodox Church and sponsored by the Gazprom company) and Trump's “confessor” who paid a visit to Ukraine, which sounds almost as ridiculous as Putin's “confessor.”

The discrediting of sacred church institutions is reaching incredible heights. Literally any denomination gives cause for “public censure.” Tellingly, it assumes radical but lapidary forms that allow us to discuss the complexities of the world in the format of a game of tic-tac-toe on WhatsApp. Thus Muslim clerical institutions are labeled as “terrorist instigators.” Catholic clergy are branded “pedophiles.” Orthodox priests are called “political prostitutes,” Protestants are dubbed “manipulators,” “Trumpists,” “preachers not of Christ but of Success”, etc. All of the together are labelled as “homophobes” and “venal scum.” In short, they have no fear of God. Not even those claim they can speak to him.

One could say, “There is nothing new under the moon.” From the Avignon Papacy to the Freemasons, from Martin Luther to the pedophile scandal, attempts to undermine the authority and destroy the political power and influence of the church have accompanied it throughout its history.

And usually with good reason. The Catholic Church deserved the Reformation. Each of the 95 Theses of Luther's “How much longer?” throb on the chest of the average Catholic like the ashes of Claes.

Similarly, in this day and age, it is impossible to deny that the Catholic Church handles criticism extremely miserably. This is especially notable when it comes to accusations of sexual exploitation, aggravated by accusations of covering up for criminals. For decades (actually centuries — but who's counting?) clergy have abused the trust of adults and children alike. And church leaders, when a scandal occurred, did nothing to neutralize the threats posed by specific individuals. Instead, they spent energy and resources to silence victims.

The charge of harboring criminals was even more severe than the direct molestation and sexual abuse charges. The bishops didn't just ignore complaints about the criminal actions of clergy; they worked hard to keep these crimes under wraps. The perpetrators received no punishment. At worst, they were transferred to another position, where they continued to commit crimes.

So the guilt of “individual representatives” turned out to be the guilt of the Church hierarchy as a whole — a kind of “sign of the times.” And it is a good sign, which not only points to a particular sinner but reveals the crisis of the church structure itself. This crisis is related to the fact that the “inner” church — the hierarchy, the “ordained” and the rules of the game they have adopted — are proving to be more valuable to the church than the flock these shepherds were called to lead. The victory of bureaucracy over mission, the transformation of the church into a “corporation of bishops” who care for the interests of the “corporation” first (second, third...) of all — is this not a cause for mass discontent?'

The same thing happened (and, alas, is still happening) in Protestant communities, in Orthodox parishes and (especially) in church schools and wherever. But it is the Catholic Church that appears to be the main target of criticism.

An effect of scale? After all, the Catholic Church is the world’s largest religious structure. And the crimes of its members are accordingly projected onto the whole globe.

But in the present context, something else turns out to be important. The Catholic Church is a rigidly hierarchical structure of the “closed” type (decisions are made in the most opaque way by a small number of people or even by a single person). It is a totally “boys' club,” which, on top of everything else, represents an unquestionable “traditional authority” capable of influencing minds almost anywhere in the world. This, by the way, is another reproach: from an ultra-liberal point of view, the Catholic Church looks almost like the main beneficiary of the colonial policies of yesteryear.

It is sufficient to subject this shard of the “old world” to crushing criticism. If possible, discredit it.

Interestingly, however, the church scandals of our time cannot be isolated from the general context of the struggle with the “traditional and unconditional” authorities established in the Western world. With institutions that are “customarily trusted” (or rather, were trusted until recently), namely traditional media, large corporations (the corporate way of life in general), the education system, the entertainment industry (perhaps insofar as it is also a kind of large corporation), old political parties, etc.

Along with the church, almost all of these “old” hierarchical structures with their workshop-like or corporate “ethics” and “professional requirements” — which gave these groups the sense of “chosenness” and elitism — came under the hail of criticism and information attacks. With their often semi-transparent or not-at-all-transparent methods of decision-making, internal rules and rituals. With unconditional loyalty and mutual protection. With everything that is associated with unconditional authority and power.

The peculiarity of these attacks is their mass and network character. It is quite natural to contrast a network attack with a “vertical” hierarchical structure. As practice shows, this sometimes “works” even on the battlefield, let alone in the information space. It is pointless to look for the origins of these attacks; they become noticeable only when they acquire the character of an avalanche: they turn into a mass movement, an information flash mob. But the main thing starts when the wave subsides: there remains a deafening noise in the noosphere (and in minds), which clogs the hearing and allows “not to notice” the devil-in-the-detail. “Fake news!” turns out to be the first (and often only) reaction to unpleasant news. The eyes of even the kindest Italian Catholics well up with suspicion at the sight of a priest stroking a child's head. The trust that belonged to public institutions and the people who represent them is undermined and often destroyed “by default.”

That's not such a bad thing, is it? Unconditional trust leads to abuse — just look at the pedophile scandal in the Catholic Church. Not so long ago, one could only welcome the abandonment of “unconditional authority,” the shift from “institution” to “opinion” in the focus of trust. One could welcome the revolution that was initiated by the traditional media and finally realized by social networks (which swept away these “traditional media”).

But the information revolution, which grew out of the idea of a “fair” and “safer” distribution of trust, has resulted in a regulated system in which any idea, any information (even evidence-based), any moral (or immoral) maxim is reduced to “just an opinion” expressed by “just someone.” In other words, the information revolution has led to the same result that other revolutions have led to: the one who was everything becomes nothing, but whoever was nothing remains nothing. Revolution is not about equality, justice and other beautiful things. It's about a change of elites.

Criticism of traditional “institutions of trust” — such as the church or traditional media — is, again, entirely deserved. But all that is happening as a result of the “trust revolution” is a redistribution of the market. The functions — if not of the “rulers”, then of the “engineers” — simply pass into other hands. This is a natural process since human nature will remain unchanged: it will always seek ready-made solutions, recipes and easy choices.

Pressure on church institutions — and on other “traditional authorities” — is a vector of counteraction on the part of the new elites. Both political (populist parties) and economic —  for example, from the owners and providers of “new media,” whose wealth is based on information exchange. This pressure is explained by a simple and understandable desire to get rid of a powerful competitor in the struggle for mass consciousness. A competitor who could resist moral relativism, the dictate of the majority and the blurring of the boundaries between good and evil. All those “cute antics” that are used by populist politicians in their quest for power and by social network owners for profit maximization.

The notion of the “engineer of the human soul” has never been closer to reality. A reality that is determined by the algorithms of search engines and recommendations on social networks. The latter, in turn, can be easily manipulated, if need be, and the data collected about users gives those who own them enormous power. No, this is neither Luddism nor a call for it. If this is a call to anything, it is a call to remember that none of the past revolutions — industrial and technological — has removed the responsibility for human choice. And choice, in turn, has never become easier just because machines were involved.