Is Facebook going too far by demanding you stick to their rules regarding your name? Over the past months I have seen more than a few people being forced to change the name they use on the social media network, because they are Catholic priests or religious who include their title (Father, Deacon, Brother or Monsignor) in their name on Facebook. The most recent example is noted blogging priest Msgr. Charles Pope, who was locked out of his account and asked to submit multiple pieces of evidence that he is really called that. Or, as Facebook’s rules have it, that that is the name people know him by. It need not be one’s official name, then.
Deacon Greg Kandra, himself a victim of the Facebook name policy, has more details.
Msgr. Pope refuses to accept Facebook’s demands, but others have changed their name, removing the Father, Deacon or Brother from their name, despite the fact that people know them as Father X, Deacon Y or Brother Z.
Facebook, as an independent company, has of course every right to make its own rules. But that does not make them right. The basic rule that people should use their own name(s) is logical, but also very limited. As Deacon Greg points out, Native American users run into the same problems as Catholic priests and religious, and also see their names judged to be not their real ones. The case of a man named Oglala Lakota Brown Eyes who Facebook decided should be called Lance Brown is particularly striking… The entire process of deciding which names are real and which are not seems quite arbitrary and limited.
But, even despite this, the titles of priests and religious are not exactly that. Unlike, say, a doctor, a priest’s title of Father indicates not a profession, but a state of being. This state of being began with his ordination and is forever. Sure, some priests may choose not to use their title, but many do, and rightly say that that is how people know them and relate to them, as Father X (or Deacon Y or Brother Z, as the case may be).
Facebook has a concern for their users’ conduct which may be justified, but goes about it in a heavy-handed, even insulting way for those involved (as, for example, the burden of proof lies with them, not with whoever decides that a name may be inaccurate or even false).