EWTN News portal reports that the Canadian government has introduced the Safe Social Media Act, prohibiting children under 16 from creating accounts on major social media platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and Facebook. The bill mandates age-verification systems, requires platforms to delete existing under-16 accounts, limits addictive design features such as infinite scrolling and algorithmic feeds, and creates a new Digital Safety Commission of Canada with enforcement powers carrying penalties of up to $10 million or 3% of global annual revenue. The article notes similar legislation in Australia and France, and highlights praise from the bishops of Minnesota for state-level restrictions on social media’s addictive features for minors. What the article presents as a straightforward public health measure, however, reveals upon Catholic analysis a profound confusion about the nature of authority, the rights of parents, the limits of civil power, and the spiritual roots of the very harms it claims to address.
The Real Danger Is Not the Screen but the Soul
The article opens by citing “mounting evidence linking heavy social media use to increased rates of anxiety, depression, sleep disruption, and and distorted body image among youth.” No Catholic can deny that these are real and grave harms. The concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life — the three fonts of sin identified by St. John the Apostle (1 John 2:16) — are indeed amplified to an almost unimaginable degree by platforms engineered to exploit the passions of the fallen human nature. The Catholic Church has always taught that occasions of sin must be avoided, and that parents bear the primary obligation to guard their children from such occasions.
But here the analysis must go deeper than the article ever dares. The harms described — anxiety, depression, distorted self-image — are not merely psychological phenomena amenable to legislative remedy. They are, at their root, spiritual disorders flowing from the wound of original sin and aggravated by the absence of grace. A soul deprived of the sacraments, of habitual prayer, of mortification, and of the supernatural virtues will find its disorder reflected in every dimension of its earthly existence, including its relationship to technology. The article’s entire framework is naturalistic: it treats the human person as a purely material organism whose ills can be corrected by regulatory adjustment, while remaining entirely silent about grace, the sacraments, the virtues, and the supernatural order. This silence is not accidental; it is the defining characteristic of the post-conciliar mentality that infects even those “bishops” who occasionally utter sensible words about social media.
Pius XI taught in Quas Primas that “the state is happy not by one means, and man by another; for the state is nothing else than a harmonious association of men.” The happiness of the state, and of the individuals within it, depends upon the recognition of Christ the King’s authority over every dimension of human life — not merely the regulation of platforms. A nation that has expelled God from its laws, its schools, and its public life, and then attempts to address the spiritual wreckage of its children through bureaucratic commissions and algorithmic restrictions, is a nation engaged in a grotesque exercise in futility. Non est potestas nisi a Deo — all authority comes from God (Romans 13:1) — and a civil power that does not acknowledge this truth has no stable foundation for any of its acts, however well-intentioned they may appear.
The Rights of Parents Against the Omnipotent State
The most immediately objectionable feature of the Canadian bill, from the perspective of Catholic social teaching, is its usurpation of parental authority. The article states that the legislation “would prohibit children under 16 from creating accounts on major social media platforms” and “requires platforms to implement age-verification systems and to delete any existing accounts belonging to users under 16.” This is not a recommendation, not an exhortation, not a subsidy for parental control tools — it is a legal prohibition enacted by the civil authority, overriding the judgment of parents in the upbringing of their own children.
Catholic teaching on this matter is unambiguous. Pope Leo XIII, in Immortale Dei (1885), taught that “the right to educate offspring belongs to the family by the law of nature, and is therefore prior to any right of civil society or the state.” The family is a society anterior to the state, and the state has no authority to intervene in the internal governance of the family except in cases of grave failure or abuse. The determination of when a child may use a particular technology, under what conditions, and with what safeguards, is a matter of parental prerogative, not legislative fiat.
Pius XI reinforced this in Divini Illius Magistri (1929), declaring that “the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture it and direct its destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to educate it, and they are entitled to the aid of the civil power in fulfilling this obligation.” Note the precise formulation: the state is to aid parents in the exercise of their prior right, not to supersede them. The Canadian bill does not aid parents; it displaces them. It says, in effect, that the state knows better than the father and mother of a 14-year-old whether that child should have a TikTok account. This is not Catholic social teaching; it is the logic of the totalitarian state dressed in the language of child protection.
The Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX condemned the proposition that “the entire government of public schools in which the youth of a Christian state is educated… may and ought to appertain to the civil power” (Proposition 45), and further condemned the claim that “the best theory of civil society requires that popular schools… should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers” (Proposition 47). If the state cannot claim absolute authority over the education of youth — which is a far more fundamental matter than social media access — then a fortiori it cannot claim the right to override parental judgment on the specific question of when a child may open an account on Instagram.
The “Bishops” of Minnesota and the Abdication of Supernatural Mission
The article notes with approval that “the bishops of Minnesota recently praised state legislation limiting social media’s addictive features for children under 16,” quoting a spokesperson for the Minnesota Catholic Conference: “These restrictions will mean happier kids who are less anxious, less worried, and more focused on the present moment.”
One must ask: is this the language of shepherds of souls, or of secular child-welfare advocates? Where is the call to the sacraments? Where is the exhortation to parents to ensure their children attend the Most Holy Sacrifice, receive Holy Confession regularly, pray the Rosary, and cultivate the virtues? Where is the warning that no legislative act can substitute for the grace of God, and that a child who is “less anxious” because infinite scrolling has been disabled, but who is in the state of mortal sin and deprived of sanctifying grace, is in a condition infinitely more dangerous than any algorithm could produce?
The “bishops” of Minnesota — and indeed the entire hierarchy of the conciliar sect — have long since abandoned their supernatural mission in favor of a naturalistic humanitarianism indistinguishable from secular liberalism. Their praise for state regulation of social media is not a Catholic act; it is the act of men who have internalized the modernist error condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), namely, the reduction of the Church’s mission to the promotion of temporal welfare and the improvement of earthly conditions. The Modernists, St. Pius X taught, “propose to reform the Church by adapting it to the demands of the times” — and what greater adaptation to the times could there be than for “bishops” to function as cheerleaders for progressive legislation?
The Lamentabili sane exitu of 1907 condemned the proposition that “the Church is incapable of effectively defending evangelical ethics, because it steadfastly adheres to its views, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress” (Proposition 63). The “bishops” of Minnesota do not even attempt to defend evangelical ethics; they simply outsource the protection of children to the secular state and express their gratitude. This is not the regnum Christi — it is the regnum hominis, the reign of man, in which the Church’s role is reduced to issuing press releases in support of government policy.
The Global Trend: A United Front of Secular States
The article situates the Canadian bill within “a broader global trend,” noting Australia’s ban on social media for those under 16 and France’s prohibition for children under 15. French President Emmanuel Macron is quoted as declaring: “I am banning social media for children under 15. Platforms have the ability to verify age. Do it.”
This global convergence is itself a symptom of the profound disorder of the modern world. Nations that have formally or practically rejected the social reign of Christ the King — that have embraced the separation of Church and State condemned by Pius IX in Proposition 55 of the Syllabus — are now discovering that the spiritual vacuum they have created must be filled by ever-expanding state control over every dimension of human life. When God is expelled from the public square, the state does not remain neutral; it becomes a god unto itself, claiming authority over the souls and bodies of its citizens that belongs only to the true Church and to parents acting within their natural rights.
The article’s reference to Australia’s experience is particularly instructive. The eSafety regulator reported that “a substantial number of children” still retained accounts despite the ban, that age verification was weak, and that platforms allowed children to “repeatedly attempt age checks until they gained access.” This is the inevitable result of legislation that addresses symptoms while ignoring causes. No verification system, however sophisticated, can compensate for the absence of parental vigilance, Catholic education, and supernatural formation. The state can delete an account; it cannot form a conscience.
The Missing Dimension: The Spiritual Formation of Youth
What is entirely absent from the article — and from the legislation it describes — is any recognition that the proper formation of youth is a supernatural work requiring supernatural means. The Catholic Church has always taught that the education of children is first and foremost a matter of forming them in the faith, guiding them to the sacraments, and cultivating in them the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, and the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, declared that “Christ reigns in the mind of man, whose duty it is to accept revealed truths with complete submission to the divine will and to believe firmly and constantly in the teaching of Christ; let Christ reign in the will, which should obey God’s laws and commandments; let Him reign in the heart, which, having despised desires, must love God above all and belong only to Him; let Him reign in the body and its members, which, as instruments… should contribute to the inner sanctification of souls.” This is the program for the formation of youth — not the disabling of infinite scrolling.
A child who is faithful at Holy Mass, who receives Holy Communion worthily, who prays daily, who is taught to mortify his senses and to resist temptation, and who is formed in an environment of Catholic culture and devotion, will not be destroyed by social media. He may still need prudent guidance regarding its use — and here the authority of parents, not the state, is the proper guide — but he will possess the interior resources to navigate the digital world without being enslaved to it. Conversely, a child who is “protected” by the state from algorithmic feeds but who is deprived of the sacraments, of catechesis, and of supernatural formation, is a child standing on the edge of an abyss with a railing around him — temporarily safe, but utterly unprepared for the moment the railing gives way.
The Digital Safety Commission: A New Inquisition Without Truth
The article describes the creation of a “Digital Safety Commission of Canada” to oversee enforcement of the legislation, with powers to impose penalties of up to $10 million or 3% of global annual revenue. This bureaucratic apparatus — with its risk assessments, its Digital Safety Plans, its reporting mechanisms — is a perfect expression of the modernist spirit: the belief that human problems can be solved by institutional structures, regulatory frameworks, and the application of technical expertise, all without reference to divine law or supernatural grace.
The true Inquisition — the Holy Office, now dismantled and replaced by bureaucratic structures serving the conciliar sect — existed to defend the deposit of faith and to protect souls from heresy, which is the gravest of all dangers. The Digital Safety Commission exists to protect children from algorithmic feeds and autoplay videos. The contrast is not merely ironic; it is diagnostic. It reveals a world — and a “Church” — that has lost all sense of proportion, that treats temporal inconveniences as grave dangers while treating the loss of the faith, the profanation of the sacraments, and the spread of heresy as matters of indifference.
Conclusion: The Kingdom of Christ or the Kingdom of Man
The Canadian Safe Social Media Act, the Australian ban, the French prohibition, and the praise of the Minnesota “bishops” all proceed from the same fundamental error: the belief that the temporal order can be set right without the prior restoration of the supernatural order. They attempt to build a safe world for children without acknowledging that safety, in the deepest sense, is found only in the state of sanctifying grace, through the sacraments of the true Church, under the social reign of Christ the King.
Pius IX warned in the Syllabus of Errors that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Proposition 80). This reconciliation — this modus vivendi with the modern world — is precisely what the conciliar sect has achieved, and what the Minnesota “bishops” exemplify in their praise for secular legislation. The true Catholic position is not to oppose prudent parental guidance regarding social media — such guidance is a matter of the virtue of prudence and falls within the competence of parents — but to insist that no temporal measure, however well-designed, can substitute for the supernatural formation of the human person in the grace of Christ through His true Church.
The remedy for the anxiety, depression, and disordered self-image of youth is not a Digital Safety Commission. It is the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacrament of Penance, the Most Blessed Sacrament, the Rosary, the cultivation of the virtues, and the restoration of Christ the King’s authority over families, nations, and every dimension of human life. Until this is recognized — by states, by “bishops,” and by parents — no legislation, however well-intentioned, will do more than rearrange the furniture in a house that is spiritually on fire.
[The full article content as formatted above]
Source:
Canadian government introduces bill to shield youth from social media harms (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 12.06.2026