Matt Fradd
Spirituality/Belief • Books • Writing
Whether it is a good idea to quit Twitter?
A Summa article for those considering quitting Twitter
October 19, 2022
post photo preview

Objection 1. Christians are called to become part of public discourse, to elevate everything for the glory of God. But today much of the public discourse takes place virtually on Twitter. To retreat from a place of virtual discourse would be to fail in one’s duty as a Christian to evangelize. Therefore, a Christian should not quit Twitter.

Objection 2. If a Christian can reach only one soul and help him reject falsehoods and convert to the Christian faith, then his time on Twitter is well spent. Therefore, a Christian should not quit Twitter.

Objection 3. That Twitter steals a Christian’s peace is not a compelling reason to quit it, anymore than it is a compelling reason to quit prison ministry or outreach to the poor because such ministries can also produce anxiety. If we get anxious, we can pray that God brings us peace. Therefore, a Christian should not quit Twitter.

Objection 4. A large following  is a sign of God’s blessing of a Twitter ministry, and to  quit Twitter would be to abandon what God is blessing.

On the contrary, Twitter is a cesspool, and the occasion for distraction, dispersion, emotional turmoil, temptation, and sin. There are good uses of Twitter, but one must be soooo disciplined about his use of the platform (in order not to waste time or fall prey to the traps just mentioned) that it's not clear to me that it's really worth it. 

I answer that, We have to acknowledge the concrete setting and the limitations of human life. It may be the case that you reach someone through Twitter and that Twitter is the only setting in and through which you reach that person. But, by choosing to engage on Twitter, it could be that you fail to reach other people whom you may have met otherwise in person or through other media. 

Further, if  Twitter poses an obstacle to your spiritual integrity/growth, it may in fact keep you from becoming the evangelist God is calling you to be. It's not just a matter of using every means available. Some means make you less fit to use the other means to which God is calling you.

We should let God’s providence be our guide, for God calls each of us to know, love, and serve him in a particular way. Our vocation is to seek out that way as best we can using the right means at the right time with the right people and for the right purpose. While the potential efficacy of engagement on Twitter is a consideration, it is not the only consideration and certainly not the most important consideration. 

Effectively, God is acting in and through the evangelist. He loves those to whom we are sent better than we do. If we want to step into the role of evangelist, it means being honest before the reality of our lives. And part of that reality may be that one experiences Twitter as a hellscape and doesn't want to touch it.

Reply to Objection 1. Evangelization ought to take place in the settings to which God calls us. God promises never to try us beyond our strength. One is often tried beyond his strength on Twitter. This seems to suggest that God is not calling us to evangelization on Twitter.

Reply to Objection 2. Temptation often announces that there are "no other means" to the attainment of a good end than the proposed course of action, that a good end justifies a bad means. This is a falsity told by the Evil One. In the proclamation of the Gospel, our Lord Jesus Christ is the sole mediator of our salvation. He sent us out to evangelize, and our efficacy is based on using good means. Thus, it is better for us not to evangelize through Twitter, lest our efforts be anathema. 

Reply to Objection 3. Human communication takes place in many different settings and circumstances, even one such as Twitter. The question is whether it is an effective setting. Engagement on Twitter often produces anger, outrage, sadness, and anxiety. Not everything that produces a strong emotional response should be shunned, but one should ask whether there are more effective means for accessing the pertinent goods at stake. And, in this instance, critics of Twitter rightly point to the benefits of in-person interaction, telephone, and email over social media and its excesses.

Reply to Objection 4. Post hoc, propter hoc. Katy Perry is the third most-followed person on Twitter. Her stardom is premised on a rejection of her Christian faith. Popularity proves nothing. 

community logo
Join the Matt Fradd Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
11
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
The Tide is Turning - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

I just got back from five weeks of preaching and travels which took me to Australia and Italy. I have been super encouraged by what I have seen in these days, especially by the interest in the faith and the desire on the part of young people to follow the Lord Jesus. It might just be that the tide of secularization is turning in the developed world.

00:19:48
Further Thoughts on the TLM - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

With recent announcements in Charlotte and Detroit, it feels like old wounds are getting re-opened. This video provides a couple of principles and arguments that can help think through and pray though liturgical life in 2025.

00:25:05
Boundaries in Conversation - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

Hello! Ever unsure of where to spend your time? I was thinking about this recently apropos of responding to emails and engaging in conversations. I'm not sure that I've come up with tight conclusions yet, but I have at least begun to formulate some principles. I hope that it's helpful for you! Cheers!

00:24:04
Simple NEW Lofi Song

Working on an entire album of lofi music. Here's one of those songs. Album should drop next week. THEN, a couple of weeks after that we hope to have our 24/7 stream up and running.

Simple NEW Lofi Song
December 01, 2022
Day 5 of Advent

THE ERROR OF ARIUS ABOUT THE INCARNATION

In their eagerness to proclaim the unity of God and man in Christ, some heretics went to the opposite extreme and taught that not only was there one person, but also a single nature, in God and man. This error took its rise from Arius. To defend his position that those scriptural passages where Christ is represented as being inferior to the Father, must refer to the Son of God Himself, regarded in His assuming nature, Arius taught that in Christ there is no other soul than the Word of God who, he maintained, took the place of the soul in Christ’s body. Thus when Christ says, in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I,” or when He is introduced as praying or as being sad, such matters are to be referred to the very nature of the Son of God. If this were so, the union of God’s Son with man would be effected not only in the person, but also in the nature. For, as we know, the unity of human nature arises from the union of soul and body.

The...

Day 5 of Advent
November 27, 2022
Day 1 of Advent

RESTORATION OF MAN BY GOD THROUGH THE INCARNATION

We indicated above that the reparation of human nature could not be effected either by Adam or by any other purely human being. For no individual man ever occupied a position of pre-eminence over the whole of nature; nor can any mere man be the cause of grace. The same reasoning shows that not even an angel could be the author of man’s restoration. An angel cannot be the cause of grace, just as he cannot be man’s recompense with regard to the ultimate perfection of beatitude, to which man was to be recalled. In this matter of beatitude angels and men are on a footing of equality. Nothing remains, therefore, but that such restoration could be effected by God alone.

But if God had decided to restore man solely by an act of His will and power, the order of divine justice would not have been observed. justice demands satisfaction for sin. But God cannot render satisfaction, just as He cannot merit. Such a service pertains to one who ...

Day 1 of Advent

For the feast day of St. John Vianney, I happened to be in Iowa and went to Mass. The priest gave a great homily that included this off-the-beaten-path bit of Church history that really stuck with me. He explained why it took nearly 1,900 years for the Church to officially name a patron saint for parish priests. Until then, most of the spiritual heavyweights were thought to be religious—monks, friars, that sort of thing. Bishops typically came from religious orders. Parish priests, the diocesan guys, were often lumped in with the laity when it came to spiritual rank… at least practically speaking. Families had a lot of children and it was pretty common for everyone to have a priest in their family.

But St. John Vianney changed that. His life of heroic virtue and tireless devotion to his little parish made it clear that diocesan priests carried their own spiritual weight. His witness shifted the perception of the priesthood itself.St. John Vianney used to spend up to 18 hours a day in the ...

post photo preview

To Matt and all fellow Australians here, happy feast of St Mary of the Cross, Australia's first (and only!) saint. I know it's not a very exciting image, but it's real and I couldn't find one of her riding a kangaroo.

post photo preview
August 05, 2025

Cody Hayes story below inspired this post.

On Sunday my wife and I baptized my two children, glory to God.

They should have been baptized when they were born, but long story short I had fallen away from Catholicism and spent many years living in sin… three years ago the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and I knew I had to come to God and that I needed to baptize my children as part of what god was asking me to do for my family and household.

It’s been a long journey back, with many trials and graces. I would like to say that I immediately baptized the kids. But in truth it was hard. But my wife and I persevered and a few months ago we decided we would delay no longer. We began meeting with our priest, and when we scheduled the baptism I felt an extraordinary gift of peace.

Well, someone did not want us to go through with it and was throwing a bit of a fit. The week leading up to the baptism was filled with nonsense around the house. There was just a heavy angry air around the house, you could ...

post photo preview
A Practical Method For Spiritual Warfare
 
In this article, I want to suggest a powerful, practical method for spiritual warfare—one that I believe will be a game-changer in your everyday life. We'll explore how consistently announcing what is true and renouncing what is false can become a potent weapon, helping you navigate the unseen battles that often manifest as struggles in our thoughts and emotions.
 
At the Catholic Easter Vigil Mass, there is a significant moment where the congregation renews their Baptismal Promises.

In essence, the priest leads the faithful to announce what is true and to renounce what is false.

For the purposes of this article we’ll begin with the questions that invite annunciations. He asks:

"Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth?"

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered death and was buried, rose again from the dead and is seated at the right hand of the Father?"

"Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?"

In responding “I do” to these questions, we are in a very real sense aligning ourselves with reality. While emotions may be present, they don’t need to be. Simply stating our agreement with the way things are is enough.

Prior to the above questions are a series of questions which invite renunciation:

"Do you renounce sin, so as to live in the freedom of the children of God?"

"Do you renounce the lure of evil, so that sin may have no mastery over you?"

"Do you renounce Satan, the author and prince of sin?"

In responding “I do” to these questions, we are renouncing, repudiating, what is false.

To those who may attend Holy Mass once or twice a year they may be surprised to discover just how seriously the Church takes the reality of the Devil and spiritual warfare. But anyone somewhat familiar with the Scriptures and the consistent teaching of the Church would not be. Here I could dump a multitude of Scriptural verses proving my point, but one will suffice. From the first letter of St. Peter:

"Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world."

And now for the main point of this article: Just as it is beneficial to regularly align ourselves with what is true (say through an act of faith), it is also beneficial to regularly repudiate, and disassociate with, what is false.

And given that our lives are situated squarely within a world at war. A world which “lies in the power of the evil one.” in which demonic forces are seeking to blind us to the things of God (2 Cor. 4:4). This is something we are going to be needing to do in one form or another on a daily basis. Multiple times a day.

Let me offer a personal anecdote that will illustrate this. I was about to interview someone on a topic that I knew would get blowback from the Demonic realm. I was going on a walk praying my rosary before my guest arrived. While I was walking I slowly became aware of a sort of oppressive force. I felt sad and restricted, somehow. Anxious. I’m not sure how long I was feeling that way, but at any rate I didn’t become conscious of it until that moment. I stopped walking and tried to sum up what I was experiencing in a word. It clicked. intimidation. That’s was it. I felt intimidated. And so I said the following prayer:

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Life is very, very simple, actually.

There is a lot going on. We are confused about many things. Embarrassed that we are confused. Pretend not to be. Have a few soundbites we can rely on when the conversation turns to Trump or the state of the Church or what is going on in Israel and Gaza or the AI revolution. We hope they don’t press us because we know enough to answer two or three questions before they will hit bedrock and we will have nothing.

All of this can lead us to believe the lie that life is complicated. And since we cannot figure it out, we should either quit, or numb, or pretend, or run ourselves ragged trying to understand everything we think we should understand.

And yet life is simple. Very, very simple. There is very little to figure out.

Love what is good. Hate what is evil. But how? When I have willingly habituated myself to do the opposite. Pray. Repent. Keep turning away from distractions. Don’t hate yourself for failing. Hope in the good God who is better than you think He is. Who cares for you more than you think He does.

What are your duties? Do them with joy and attention. Don’t hate yourself when you fail at this. Pray. Repent. Have a sense of humor about your littleness. You are incredibly loved after all, remember?

Turn away from what is useless and petty and vulgar and think about what is excellent.

Say “Your will be done” 100 times a day, especially when things are bad or seem meaningless. Your headache. Your bad night sleep. The house you can’t seem to get around to tidying.

Be patient and gentle with stupid people who can’t seem to make themselves love or want to love what is good, yourself first and foremost.

Jesus, help me want to want to love you. Help me want to want to hate anything opposed to you or your kingdom.

Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Read full Article
post photo preview
Is Knowledge Possible (No ... And Yes)

I want to begin by admitting that I’m an amateur when it comes to epistemology. I do have a master’s degree in philosophy, but epistemology wasn’t my area of focus. Some of you reading this will know more about the subject than I do. And to be honest, I’m a little nervous about the comments. There’s a good chance that if you engage with what I’m about to say in any real depth, I won’t understand you and it will be my fault that I don’t.

Okay, with that admission out of the way…

 

We've long assumed that knowledge requires three criteria: (1) belief, (2) truth, and (3) justification. In other words, to know something is to believe it, for it to be true, and to have good reason for believing it. That’s the classical definition: justified true belief (JTB).

And just real quick, if you’re wondering why knowledge can’t be defined by just the first two criteria, it’s because believing something that happens to be true is more like getting lucky than knowledge. Imagine I say it’s raining in Adelaide, but I have no reason for thinking so. I didn’t check my weather app or ask anyone who lives there. If it turns out that it is raining, I was right, but only by chance. That’s not knowledge. To genuinely know something, you need more than belief and truth, you need a reason for thinking it’s true. You need justification.

Okay …

Along Comes Gettier

Now, for a long time, this three-part definition held up well. But then, in 1963, Edmund Gettier came along and broke everything in three pages. You can read that paper here.

Gettier presented scenarios where someone has a belief that is both true and justified, yet we still hesitate to call it knowledge. Why? Because the belief turns out to be true by accident.

One of the most well-known examples (though not from Gettier himself but often used to illustrate his point) is the case of the stopped clock. A man glances at a clock that has stopped working, sees that it says 2:00, and forms the belief that it is 2:00. And it just so happens to be 2:00. His belief is true. He used a normally reliable method, checking the time on a clock. And yet, the method failed. The belief was correct purely by coincidence.

Can We Save “Knowledge”

Now, some have tried to save the classical definition by saying, “Well, that wasn’t really justified. The clock was broken, so the belief was faulty from the start.” But that kind of move just shifts the problem. If we start redefining justification every time we hit a weird case, we risk making it so strict that it no longer resembles what anyone would call a “justified belief.”

Others, like Alvin Goldman, proposed ditching the concept of justification entirely. Maybe knowledge isn’t about having reasons, but about using processes that generally lead to truth. This is called reliabilism: if your belief comes from a trustworthy process (like vision, memory, or scientific inference) it counts as knowledge.

But again, the clock case poses a problem. Even if the process is usually reliable, it clearly failed here. So are we back to calling this knowledge, even though it was true by luck?

Still others have suggested that knowledge is less about having the right reasons or processes, and more about the person doing the knowing. This is what’s known as virtue epistemology: the idea that knowledge is a kind of intellectual success rooted in intellectual virtue: careful thinking, honesty, openness to evidence. On this view, knowing isn’t about checking boxes; it’s about doing something well. Like an archer hitting the bullseyes, not by accident, but through skill.

That’s compelling. But even here, questions linger. How do we measure intellectual virtue? And isn’t it still possible to do everything right and end up wrong—or to be wrong for the right reasons and still, somehow, stumble into truth?

An (Initially) Unsettling Realization

Which brings me to a more unsettling thought.

If a belief like “it’s 2:00” can be true, feel justified, come from a reliable process, and still be the product of a broken clock—what else might we be getting wrong without realizing it? Maybe the deeper problem is that we can always be deceived. Even our best faculties (sight, memory, reason etc.) can betray us. And if that’s the case, maybe knowledge (at least in the strong, philosophical sense) is impossible. Or if not impossible, impossible to know if and when you have it.

David Hume once said, “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” That strikes me as a sane and honest approach. The question isn’t whether I can be absolutely certain about what I believe, but whether I have good reasons for believing it—and whether I’m open to changing my mind if those reasons fall apart.

Some might find it unsettling—even scandalous—that we can’t achieve a God’s-eye view of the world. But honestly, what’s strange isn’t that we can’t see things with perfect clarity. It’s that we ever thought we should.

Maybe that’s why I find myself leaning toward fallibilism—the view that we can still know things, even while admitting we might be wrong. That kind of knowledge isn’t rigid or absolute, but humble and revisable. And that, to me, feels much closer to the way real life works.

So no, I’m not sure we need to cling too tightly to the word knowledge, at least not in the abstract, capital-K sense. What matters more is the posture we take toward the truth. That we pursue it carefully, honestly, and with a readiness to revise our beliefs when the evidence calls for it.

At least, that’s what I think I know.

 
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals