Archbishop Nichols has proved, yet again, how unsuitable he is to lead the Catholics of England and Wales.
He has launched an offensive against Catholic bloggers (see Fr Simon Henry's post on the matter HERE)
The fact that Catholic schools are not fit for purpose, most of them, and that homosexual Masses are allowed to take place at Farm Street and The Tablet is still for sale at the back of most churches in the Archdiocese of Westminster is all tickety boo in the Archbishop's funny old way of thinking.
But to have Catholics sticking their heads up above the pulpit and witnessing and criticising those who 'run' the Church in England and Wales and beyond is verboten!
At least, in his book.
Catholic bloggers may not always get things right; sometimes we are too cavalier, sometimes we go a shade over the top. But we mean well, don't we?
And all that I read in the blogs written by Catholics would fall under the category of constructive criticism.
If we did not love our Faith we would not bother - would we?
But American Brandon Vogt has some wise words of advice for Bishops who have an aversion to bloggers.
I hope they read his post - HERE
And then, perhaps they might like a little time for reflection.
And then, perhaps they might tackle the inadequacy of RE in Catholic schools, call a halt to priests dressing like slobs, sort out the liturgical abuses, stop the sodo Masse,in short, set their own houses in order.
They might even like to start a blog.
He has launched an offensive against Catholic bloggers (see Fr Simon Henry's post on the matter HERE)
The fact that Catholic schools are not fit for purpose, most of them, and that homosexual Masses are allowed to take place at Farm Street and The Tablet is still for sale at the back of most churches in the Archdiocese of Westminster is all tickety boo in the Archbishop's funny old way of thinking.
But to have Catholics sticking their heads up above the pulpit and witnessing and criticising those who 'run' the Church in England and Wales and beyond is verboten!
At least, in his book.
Catholic bloggers may not always get things right; sometimes we are too cavalier, sometimes we go a shade over the top. But we mean well, don't we?
And all that I read in the blogs written by Catholics would fall under the category of constructive criticism.
If we did not love our Faith we would not bother - would we?
But American Brandon Vogt has some wise words of advice for Bishops who have an aversion to bloggers.
I hope they read his post - HERE
And then, perhaps they might like a little time for reflection.
And then, perhaps they might tackle the inadequacy of RE in Catholic schools, call a halt to priests dressing like slobs, sort out the liturgical abuses, stop the sodo Masse,in short, set their own houses in order.
They might even like to start a blog.
You tell 'em, Richard. I have my own stories, too!
ReplyDeleteIt is the clerics causing scandals in the modern church - hence the sheep stray.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the archbishop has a point and, rather than complaining, we could use praise instead. Some phrases to use: "the irreproachably orthodox Tablet"; "the wonderful sodo masses"; "the inspirational creative liturgy"; "the brilliantly effective RE programmes"..."Cardinal ...."?
ReplyDeleteIn the interest of fairness, he is not saying that bloggers - or even blogs - have no place in the Church:
ReplyDelete"Pope Francis understands this in practical terms. He has already identified two kinds of behaviour that destroy love in the Church. They are complaining and gossiping. He is a practical man. He knows that we live in a society in which complaining and gossip is a standard fare. They sell newspapers and attract us to blogs because we love hear complaints and to read gossip.
But Pope Francis is clear: they should have no place in the Church."
The word 'they' throughout that whole section refers to 'gossiping and complaining'. He says that it is gossiping and complaining that sell newspapers and attract to blogs, not bloggers: and it is gossiping and complaining that have no place in the Church, he says.
Whether you agree with what he said or how he said is one thing - but he was not saying that bloggers have no place in the Church.
I have to agree with you, Johannes. I had the same reaction to many who, I think, are reading this incorrectly and/or taking out of context.
DeleteArchbishop Nichols and many other dissenting Bishops and priests ought to be removed from ministry and disciplined. They cause egregious scandal, loss of Faith, lead people into sin. They - and their predecessors in dissension and subversion of truth and the Church - are mainly responsible for the destruction of the Faith, the Church across the world so that only a minority remnant of the Faithful remains. It angers these ruling dissenters that the remnant have access to international communications with which they can call out such malicious dissension.
ReplyDeleteI'll comment when I've got more time tomorrow, but the real reason why +Vin does not like Catholic bloggers is because they are the ones who have prevented him getting his red hat so far.
ReplyDeleteThought it was worth mentioning.
Hope all is well.
Perhaps Archbishop Nichols should take Pope Francis' words to heart "Inconsistency on the part of pastors and the faithful between what they say and what they do, between word and manner of life, is undermining the Church’s credibility."
ReplyDeleteA charitable view might be that ++ Nichols is an excellent example of the Peter Principle (promotion to one's level of incompetence) in action.
ReplyDeleteLOL Left-footer. I suppose he can't help it. He seems very intellectually challenged. Still, the Church will outlast such as he.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to the CDF smack down on these Soho Liturgies? That's what has no place in the Church.
ReplyDeleteI really like Brandon's concept of blogs as conversations in the pub or in an informal gathering at home, rather than documents to be vetted. Perfect!
ReplyDeleteThink a lot of this archepiscopal venom is being directed at me via my comments on the Herald...I make no apologies for them
ReplyDeleteOTSOTA. Oh my, aren't you just so very important?
ReplyDeleteIt is so dripping, with the richest sort of irony, that the Ecu-maniacal concilliar Church, so open to "dialoguing" with savages of several stripes, that they now demand, in the face of impeccable criticism, the same papal and Bishop worship for themselves, that they demonize in pre-conciliar Popes and heirarchy! Chesterton reminds us of the "democracy of the dead" in his homage to Tradition, a notion totally foreign to our Bugnini-ish concilliar architects. We are all now too familiar with the kind of thinking that surmizes the seminal event in history was not The Incarnation, but what hippie neo-modernists imagined in 1963! They are not praying "they become one". They act the part of sophist cowards, who are no longer interested in the conversion of the culture and the making of Saints, but instead favor the neo-modernist caressing of every filthy thing that crawled through their "open window". What truly stops thinking Protestants, like C.S. Lewis, from becoming Catholic is how we prevent a Pope Liberius, Honararius, or Alexander VI from sullying the Petrine Office. The Papacy and Episcopacy are not a reward, but a responsibilty. It is not a license, but an eternal-life hinging promise to The Most High to feed and protect the sheep and lambs. St. Charles Barromeo reminds us that the streets of hell are paved with the skulls of Bishops, to which we are no longer astonished. Why was the worst man who ever lived one of the first BISHOPS?! What is the warning/meaning to every Apostle of Christ?! Faux-humility is easily feigned, but true humility is taking responsibilty for the last 50 years of the "Devastated Vineyard" and making amends. Liberals are never sorry for THEIR sins, just imagined sins of others. Like the cultural-catholic we have as our commander-n-chief, Liberals keep doubling down on the same disasters until they send the country, or The Faithful, into oblivion, and where only intimidation and calumny of the messenger seems the only stand-alone priority. Pilate worried first about crowd-control as well...VIVA CHRISTO REY!!!
ReplyDeleteIn my entire life as a Roman Catholic I have never sat down and had a chat with a Roman Catholic Bishop. I wasn't a "professional Catholic" if you can see what I mean. But I have sat down with an Orthodox Bishop (Bishop Thomas of the Antiochian Orthodox Church), who wasn't surrounded by his "professional Catholic" entourage and had no problem talking with me. Me the "non professional Catholic"
ReplyDeleteThank you all for your comments. Like Mack I enjoy the pub scenario and also the comment by Patricius and am heartened by OPN's.
ReplyDeleteJohannes - I was not referring to the HF's address but to ++ Nichols deviation on it. No mistaking that message, I think, quite different from Pope Francis's.
ReplyDeleteI only talked about what ++Nichols said. I didn't mention the Holy Father myself. That was a quote from the homily that you are talking about... I think that you have mistaken what ++Nichols is saying. We should be fair to the Archbishop and read his sermons in the context - this isn't some craven response here that we get from some ultra-montanists or apologists for dioceses, this is an interest in fair play. He is not saying what you have interpreted him as saying, at least not directly.
Delete