Cardinal’s (Ironic) Tweet: Catholics Shouldn’t Complain On Social Media! 

From De Omnibus Dubitandum Est blog…

Cardinal Vincent Nichols

The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Gerard Cardinal Nichols took to Twitter recently to berate Catholics who use the internet for the “bitterness, tittle-tattle, hostility and false witness that floods the digital world.”

Linking to a homily the Cardinal delivered at the Venerable English College in Rome on the 21st October 2018, he suggested “those who contribute” include “priests and deacons.”
“How easily the internet reduces us to digital tribes, engaged in a kind of bitter conflict which somehow seems acceptable because it is ‘out there’ somewhere. Even if we do not contribute, and sometimes we are worse than others, far too easily we amuse ourselves at the discomfort of others.”

The Cardinal said. And he has a point. But if “priests and Deacons” are among those who feel they have no alternative but to speak out, one can only, surely, conclude that our unity is under a massive attack. It is not hard to see that is clearly the case or to see why and how it is under attack.

When cardinals and bishops fail to speak up for Christ, someone has got to.

However, it is difficult not to see this as a direct comment on the discussion which has surrounded the deeply controversial Youth Synod (now being termed “the smuggler synod because of various nefarious interventions), which the Cardinal directly references at the beginning of his homily.

The Synod has promoted numerous problematic directions, as has been widely reported, and where there is controversy, there is inevitably discussion.

The same can be said of Cardinal Nichols himself, to the point where many faithful English & Welsh Catholics reading his tweets felt the need to comment on his questionable record; just look at the replies on Twitter.

I find it really difficult to understand why the Cardinal’s objective failure to hold to and transmit the Gospel message he is commissioned to does not, in his mind, constitute a disfigurement of the face of Christ, whilst faithful Catholics voicing legitimate concerns does?

Would you like some evidence?  Click here to find it…

Comment:

Cardinal Nichols is one of those members of the Hierarchy who appears to consider critics – however tactful, however, charitable in “tone” when they write to him – to be disreputable persons, low-life, of no importance, not worth bothering about, which would explain why, generally speaking he doesn’t reply to anyone who dares to question anything he says or does. Like his support for the Soho Masses, for example.  You don’t like it? Tough…  seems to be his attitude. 

It’s hardly surprising, then, that he objects to such low-life (I count myself as such – I’ve written to him with no reply to show for my trouble) having a voice where our uncensored observations and concerns may be published.

My response on reading his tweets, then,  was “too bad, Eminence… too (blankey blank) bad.  Maybe if you and your brother bishops answered our letters of concern, we wouldn’t need to use social media….  

What’s your response?

Or, to be fair [gritted teeth] does he have a point?  

34 responses

  1. Am Banned off of Twitter probably because of 2 things. The Brett Kavanaugh Debacle by Brass Neck Ford or for and probably including berating the Very False witness and Catholic untruths by Jimmy Martin. Martin has a huge following both on Twitter and Facebook where he incessantly spreads his false Gospel of Homosexuality I don’t see the Cardinal saying anything about him . This man ( to Me ) is far removed either from Truth or from reality. Where is his concern on Twitter about the Health or Care of Archbishop Vigano . No he is a puppet of Francis worked by his strings who says that We cannot criticise the terrible things happening at His Level in Our Catholic Church not his . And if Twitter is one of the best ways to get to these so called Untouchables I say carry on with Gusto .

      • Editor,

        LOL! I totally agree. Faith of our Fathers is hilarious so it’s Twitter’s loss, not his. I hope you never ban him from here, as I would miss him loads!

  2. I’d say that Cardinal “Soho” Nichols is greasing the skids (i.e. being a Francis sycophant) for the advancement of this nefarious – and laughable – “certification” of Catholic websites that is called for in the Youth Sin-Odd document. Interesting that the members of the hierarchy who support the latest absurdity du jour out of Francis’ mouth have absolutely no credibility…and neither does their Dictator Boss.

    I’d love to see the Cardinal’s definition of “charity.” Probably as preposterous as Francis’/John XXIII’s definition of “mercy.”

    • RCA Victor,

      I couldn’t agree less more… I mean, more or less 😀

      Completely agree!

      And I, too, would love to see the Cardinal’s definition of “charity” – just as I’d love to see his definition of “manners” just to see if it includes “replying to communications” as an example.. Hardly, since he has very limited, if any, experience of replying to communications, judging by my empty file.

  3. One of the most discouraging things about the modern Church (I won’t call it the “new” Church, Whistleblower…) is that the Party Line has replaced the Truth. Especially under Francis – accompanied by a pervasive climate of fear, from what I understand. This Cardinal’s comments are the perfect example of mouthing the Party Line.

    I suppose this shouldn’t be surprising, since the Freemasons and Communists control the levers of power in the Vatican (according to them, since 1958), but one hears Truth so rarely nowadays it is almost a shock when it appears.

    And under Francis, if it does appear, it is immediately punished…

    • RCA Victor

      Hear, hear. I agree with you 100%. We won’t get the truth again until we get rid of Francis. We might be ticked off for talking about a “new” Church but I think we’ll get brownie points for wishing for a new pope, LOL!

  4. No, the Cardinal doesn’t have a point. He has a cheek telling us not to complain on Twitter when he is complaining about us complaining, LOL – Loved the headline!

    He has shockingly betrayed Catholic teaching, especially by encouraging the gay Masses in Soho, which is why he is still smarting, and he encouraged the civil partnerships law, which, at the time, I couldn’t believe.

    Also, I was interested to see that Mr Lambert published (very carefully!) the rumours about his relationship with the Sister, as I’m sure I heard that anyone who asked about that in the past was threatened with legal action. I understand that the rumours may be unfounded but I never think threats of legal action are a good way to convince anyone of that. I am assuming that she was nothing more than a housekeeper or assistant of some kind, especially now that she’s been replaced, but the clergy really do need to be doubly careful these days not to cause people to talk, IMHO.

    I hope Catholics DO continue to use social media to discuss our concerns but writing to the so-called Catholic press is a waste of time. They’ve shot themselves in the foot, there, now that we have an alternative means of making our voices heard.

      • Crofterlady,

        You have obviously not read the main part of the article. I did what I often do, posted part of the article and then put a link to the source, so that you can read the rest of it. You’ve not clicked on the link which takes you to Mark Lambert’s article. . If you go back up to the article and scroll to where it says….

        Would you like some evidence? Click here to find it… (it’s not in italics up there, I’ve put italics here to alert you to the word to click).

        Then click on “here” you will get through to Mr Mark Lambert’s article. Then read it until you reach the piece about Sister.

        • Rumbled again. Mea culpa!

          Well, I’ve read it now and what a despicable hypocrite the Cardinal is. I now where Dante will place him in the next life!

  5. Cardinal Nichols is terrible. This interview is interesting, listening to him praising Francis and the interviewer thinking Francis is popular in Britain – LOL!

  6. This is real arrogance from Cardinal Nichols, dressed up as an appeal to charity.

    He is really saying “just shut up and take what you are given”.

    Catholics *should* complain about things on social media, not least because – time and again – we have seen that the modern hierarchy cannot be trusted and will always deliver the lowest standard they feel they can get away with.

    We see this attitude embodied in the person of Pope Francis, not least with his latest scheme of taking the legs from the USCCB by forbidding them to make any decisions (at their current gathering) about how to tackle abuse. This is despite it being a major concern of the lay people and major issue for the Church at large.

    So much, then, for the “synodality” he had inserted into the synod document at the last minute, without discussion. (In the latest example of feigning discussion and listening, only to impose his own agenda).

    He is so “all over the place” that I genuinely wonder about his intellect and mental health.

    Social media is a great tool for Catholics to communicate dangers and hold their leaders to account. I suggest Cardinal Nichols either gets used to that, or hand in his resignation.

  7. Cardinal Nichols is a total waste of space, may God forgive me, but he is.

    I’ve seen him in TV interviews and he is never every truly Catholic. That Salt and Light interview is typical.

  8. What does he mean by “social media”? Is he talking about blogs? From my understanding, social media means Facebook and Twitter and aren’t they outlets for individual people?

    After typing that, I thought I would check it by visiting The Remnant site LOL! I was amazed to see they are on Facebook and Twitter. I couldn’t get the Twitter page to download but the Facebook page did – and sorry, but I’m not impressed. https://www.facebook.com/TheRemnantNewspaper

    It’s typical of the Facebook pages I’ve seen before, huge pictures and tiny print. I can never wait to get out of those Facebook pages, and Twitter is the same.

    So, I don’t know what the Cardinal is going on about – I can’t see many people spending their time complaining on Facebook, LOL! It’s mostly just headlines and pictures from what I can see. Mind you, like I say, I can never wait to get out so maybe there’s more comments than I could see in my short visit. From what I could see, more people comment on the Remnant blog than on their Facebook page.

    I’ll try their Twitter page again as well.

    • Michaela,

      I read your post with much interest, and I paid a visit to the Remnant Facebook page and Twitter feed as a result. Hadn’t even noticed that they were on those social media outlets. As far as I can see, both contain only a list of all the stuff on their blog! A bit pointless, it seems to me. Still, if they have the time, I suppose, why not. Takes me all my time to manage this blog. And I do agree about the huge pictures and small print. I’ve always found these layouts, very unattractive.

      However, I must thank you, sincerely, for that post because – having visited The Remnant blog, Facebook and Twitter sites, I felt prompted me to do a search for the Twitter feed of someone I know who advocates “social media” over blogging, and who has long been a supporter of Catholic Truth – or so he said.

      I say, “or so he said” because my astonishment knew no bounds when – just a short while ago – I managed to find his Twitter feed, and discovered that there is not a single mention of Catholic Truth, newsletter, website or this blog anywhere on his feed.

      Church Militant is featured, incredibly, but not a single mention of Catholic Truth anywhere. Even our videos don’t rate a mention – although he did tell me, some time ago, that he would spread them on social media, so I’m really and truly reduced to uttering one word only on the matter… Unbelievable!

      WOW! You think you know someone… WOW!

      Thanks, again, Michaela for your very interesting comment – and I would only add that, having taken more time than I ever have done before to study a couple of Twitter feeds, I’m deeply concerned that cardinals and bishops are wasting their time on these sites.

      • It is with a heavy heart that I write this post. I do so, having written privately to the editor on this matter requesting that a clarification be made, or the above comment deleted. I’ve had an incredibly legnthy email, hilariously beginning with the words “Just quickly”, justifying the above abuse of the blog so I feel I have no choice but to issue the following clarification myself.

        The Twitter feed referred to is one that has been closed down for a number of months. I should state that I’m not a fan of Twitter. In fact, I was active only sporadically until May of this year when my activity increased in light of the Irish Referendum on abortion. Yes, I did retweet a post by Church Militant regarding the referendum. Other than that, my twitter use has always been sporadic.

        Since then, I closed down my twitter account due to a computer virus – the editor knew all about this. Therefore, I’m stunned to read this comment. Whilst it is true that I haven’t shared anything to do with Catholic Truth on Twitter, this is only because my use of this outlet has been few and far between.

        Yes, I did say that I would share the Catholic Truth videos on social media, but I haven’t yet got round to creating a new account on Twitter. I explained this to the editor this week, so I’m quite stunned to read this comment.

        Contrast my use of Twitter to my use of Facebook. I have, on numerous occasions, posted links to the blog on several Facebook accounts, sent links to the Catholic Truth videos by Facebook messenger and encouraged others to join the blog via Facebook.

        Now that I’ve cleared that up, I hope the editor will issue an unreserved apology. As explained, I’m at a loss as to why she would post a cryptic message on the blog without speaking to me about it first! THAT is “unbelievable”!

        • Petrus,

          I’ve just read the post above yours from Editor, and I must say that since she did not name you, I am dumbstruck that you would publicly name her and humiliate her as you have tried to do. I can’t see how she has anything to apologise for. At the worst there’s been some misunderstanding, I can’t imagine she has deliberately tried to harm you and she didn’t name you, so why have you named her? Do you think she’s been malicious? I can’t see it, personally.

          You are using clever language like “abuse” of the blog and “cryptic” message. I can’t see any abuse and anything cryptic. She gave an example of someone who says they support the blog, she didn’t even say it was a blogger, so most of us would probably never have thought it was you. I don’t know why you are getting yourself in a state about it.

          • Thank you for your input, Lily.

            I would request no further discussion on the matter. I have felt it necessary to post the clarification and I won’t comment any further. God bless .

        • Petrus,

          I’m very surprised to read your comment. I would have hoped that my friendly email in reply to your email asking if my blog comment referred to your Twitter account, would have sufficed to clear the air. I would preferred not to have a public disagreement, but, your will not mine be done…

          I have no memory of you telling me about any virus or Twitter account closing. The first I heard about this and about a new Twitter account possibly opening (you hadn’t made up your mind) was in your email 18 November – today. That’s not to say I haven’t simply forgotten – that may be the case, but the shock came, I’m afraid, when seeing that you posted quite a bit on your Twitter account back in May, during the Irish referendum, linking to Church Militant and SPUC (and even someone in England with the very same name as my unworthy self!) but not Catholic Truth – even though we had a blog running at the time of the Irish referendum, and you had actually joined us in Dublin to leaflet!

          I was also under the impression that your Facebook was simply to keep in touch with friends and relatives in far flung places, so I’ve not looked at that – thank you, though, for whatever links you have posted. Very kind.

          My apologies for any offence caused – unintended. And happy tweeting!

          Lily,

          Thank you for your kind defence, but no need, really. I need all the humble pie I can get… I’m running out of chocolate!

          Actually, seeing your comment about being in a “state” reminded me of a story I once heard about a group of soldiers meeting President Bush, USA in Iraq during that conflict. He asked each one of them where they were from, and then asked “what state is that in?” Each one would say the name of the US state. Then he came to a Scots soldier and asked him where he was from. The lad said “Glasgow, Mr President” and when the President asked him what state that was in, the soldier waved his hand around the desolate landscape of Iraq and replied: “in the same state as this place, Mr President!”

          You have to laugh!

          PS I think Petrus is right to suggest an end to commentary on this unfortunate matter. It’s not the end of the world if Catholic Truth doesn’t get mentioned on Twitter. Silly me to over-react. So, let that be the death of this particular debate, or, put another way… May it rest in peace…

          • Editor,

            Again, you are being dishonest. Your email was NOT friendly. Not at all.

            In fact, since you have claimed otherwise , I now have a good mind to reveal just how unfriendly it was. Having said that, I will respect your position of authority and not respond any further to this conversation.

            • Petrus,

              I want you to feel absolutely free to publish my email

              For readers to make sense of the content though, they would really need to read yours as well, but whatever you think. You have my blessing to publish my email sent earlier today, which I thought was friendly. I would not deliberately say something that is not true – that IS being dishonest. I made every effort to reply to your email (and I’m not using any adjective to describe it!) in as friendly a manner as possible, If I failed, then that is a pity, but I’ve just re-read it and were I the recipient, I would describe it as “friendly”.

              Now, I’m supposed to be somewhere else, away from my computer, so I need to get on – but, feel absolutely free to publish my email if you wish.

            • Petrus,

              I don’t want to make this spat worse, but you are coming across as a very vindictive, unforgiving person. The editor seems to be doing her best to pour oil on troubled waters but you won’t give up your anger. Isn’t holding onto a grudge a sin?

              • Fidelis,

                Having slept on this matter I feel I must address one more issue that you have raised.

                I am not the least bit vindictive. I have no anger towards the editor. Only profound disappointment. Someone accused me yesterday of being clever with words (I wish). However, editor, being far cleverer than I am, has managed to present herself as being reasonable and conciliatory. Therefore, I will, of course, accept her apology. I would have preferred to sort this out in private, but the “friendly” (although it stated that because I hadn’t shared anything to do with Catholic Truth editor’s opinion of me had changed dramatically and our “friendship” wasn’t what she thought it was) email was a “hit and run” job. Strange definition of “friendly”. It’s clear that friendship, for the editor of Catholic Truth is measured by absolute loyalty and fidelity to Catholic Truth. Again, strange version of friendship. I’m sure Stalin would be proud!

                One more thing, Fidelis. It was pointed out to me recently that we are forbidden from attempting to accuse others of sin. This is, in fact, a sin itself. We cannot read someone else’s soul. So, I’d be more careful in future.

                I’ve broken my own promise not to talk about this again, so this time I really will, to use the editor’s words, allow it to “rest in peace”.

                • Petrus,

                  I really think you should stop digging, LOL!

                  You say you are not vindictive and then say the editor has “managed to present herself as being reasonable and conciliatory” – to me that implies that she is not really being honest. She did come across as very reasonable, IMHO, and you are coming across as being determined to put her in a bad light, you even compare her to Stalin!

                  About the friendship thing. To be honest with you, if I were running Catholic Truth and found that one of the bloggers I’d known for long enough to think of as a friend, was linking to other sites during the Irish referendum when we were discussing it here, and had actually gone over there to leaflet, but not linking to us, I would question how much of a friend you were, although I’ve no idea how much of a friendship you and editor have, but if you are only friends through the blog it’s understandable that she would be disappointed that you didn’t support the blog on your twitter during the referendum. That’s the only example she’s given so I am just saying what my own attitude would be in that case.

                  I also notice that you only put quote marks round the word “friendship” not the rest of what you claim is from her email. She’s given permission to publish her email so I don’t know why you don’t just publish that if you want to keep this going.

                  She’s not stopping you commenting here so I think you really are being unjust by keeping the thing going when she has been as fair as possible – she even accused herself of being silly and over-reacting. I really do wonder why you are so angry over this. I suggest you let it go.

                  BTW, I didn’t accuse you of sin, I just said that holding onto a grudge is a sin, which it is.

                  • Fidelis,

                    Thank you for your kind attempts to speak for me, but no need. Just leave it now, and allow Petrus, if he chooses to return, to have the last word.

                    I have just received an email from him, asking me to address something: below is the pertinent extract from his email to me, just received:

                    “One final thing that I must ask you to address on the blog. You may remember a few months back my email and mobile phone number caused me terrible hassle. You SHOULD remember, as I changed my number several times and informed you several times that my email was playing up and I explained that I had to change my mobile device several times DUE TO A VIRUS! I’ve gathered those emails into one document if you have trouble recalling. To suggest on the blog that yesterday was the first time you had heard of a virus is either due to a serious memory issue, or dishonesty. I assume it’s the former as I didn’t have you down as a dishonest person. “

                    The above prompt has indeed reminded me about that spell when Petrus was changing his phone number a lot. I simply did not remember it when he spoke of having a virus nor did I connect it to his Twitter feed. I’m not the most techno-savvy person in the blogosphere!

                    I’ve probably not answered everything but I am already late for an appointment so I will only answer, briefly, this business of “friendship”.

                    My friendship with everyone on this blog – and I have become friends with quite a few who have been to my home socially, for example – is a friendship that has its roots in the work of this blog. That’s what we speak about, it’s the Faith that has always united us. If, for example, one of the bloggers whom I regard as a friend decides they’re done with blogging, that would be fine, no hard feelings, but our common “interest”, so to speak, would no longer exist and so the “friendship” would have no basis. It’s like friendships with colleagues in the workplace, When we move to a different job or move house, we may determine to stay in touch but, in my experience, in due course, we lose touch. Our common interests have changed.

                    It’s not fair, therefore, to interpret the “blog friendship” as a request for “absolute loyalty and fidelity to Catholic Truth.” Not at all. I don’t think I used the word “dramatically” changed (friendship), I’m more likely to have used “radically” since that is more accurate, but I’d need to double-check. Not that important.

                    Petrus has told us all on the blog that he often engages in conversations on Bishop Keenan’s Facebook. I’ve encouraged him to do that in the past. So, there is no absolute loyalty required. Indeed, if Petrus hadn’t himself explained that he could spread Catholic Truth links and videos on “social media” I wouldn’t have had the proverbial clue!

                    Anyway, this has become one of those “something and nothing” issues, so I suggest that we leave it there. I’ve asked that before, and been ignored, so I can only remind everyone that it actually isn’t pleasing to God when we nurse a grievance or stoke a fire. I should have said nothing in the first place – agreed – and I would not have done so if I had thought for a minute that it would ignite such an angry response.

                    So, thank you Fidelis, but no more the defence lawyer, please and thank you!

                    • Editor,

                      I was about to say this is my final list on the matter, when I laughed to myself. I really should contact the Oxford English Dictionary and ask them to redefine “final”.

                      I appreciate your latest post and agree that this should end the matter. Be assured that I will continue to spread links to this apostolate on Facebook . It might not be all that fruitful, but at least it is something.

                      At no point have I ever hidden my allegiance to Catholic Truth, whether on social media, in emails to bishops and in direct conversation with bishops. This is why I overreacted when I was criticised for not doing so on Twitter. I apologise for this overreaction , but I didn’t feel it was fair to judge my allegiance, question my character (“you think you know a person “) and then seek to end, what I thought was a firm friendship, over a Twitter feed that is now defunct.

                    • Petrus,

                      I hope this does the trick…

                      On a different topic

                      Thank you for your recent texts asking for prayers for Janice.

                      For the benefit of other bloggers/readers, Petrus’s wife, Janice, has been unwell for a while and is now in hospital with surgery scheduled for 8.a.m. tomorrow.

                      Please pray very hard for her.

                      I’ll also post a notice on the lead (Brexit) thread, to ensure as many as possible read it and keep Janice in their prayers until after this operation.

                      Our Lady of Lourdes, health of the sick, pray for her.

  9. Yes, I agree, they are a waste of time. As a mother of a growing family, five at present, I certainly wouldn’t waste my time on such superficial sites. My children are more important. However, I do see that there’s a need to be true to my Confirmation promise to be a soldier of Christ, therefore, if I have spare time (lol) I try to use it judiciously by eg., reading good material, only watching good programmes and only blogging on good sites.

    • Helen,

      I know of another mother who says the same thing and will not allow her young family to open Facebook or Twitter accounts. They are truly addictive, according to many TV discussions on the subject of research into the effects of spending a long time on various screens. In one such conversation, a participant pointed out that people are going on to Facebook and writing things like “I’m off to make some tea now” … “enjoyed my cup of tea” blah blah. WHAT a waste of time, as you say.

%d bloggers like this: