He sides with extreme viewpoints and gives cover, support, and encouragement to those who are preaching divisiveness about the faith. While he doesn't say it explicitly, the message he sends is that the Church isn't welcoming. As someone who struggles with the Church (not with Faith in God), he is the exact reason I rebel against it.
I'm not going to get into a protracted debate: but when you support priests like Fr. Pavone and Fr. Altman - who were duly and (in my opinion) rightfully punished by the Church - and been as critical of the Pope as he has been, things are very clear.
ok one abortion and other traditional salvation of souls priest. Then pope. What do you want? It's who the Lord chooses not anybody else. It's who He welcomes not you or me or any pope. It's His Church not anybody elses. I say the Jesus prayer because I have sinned. I go to Mass not because of anyone else (What are they to me whether they welcome me or not. The Lord has). Forget politics. As Christ said to Peter when he wanted to know what John was dong "What is that to you?" Forget about the others. Otherwise you will not grow in sanctity. Forget the welcome. It's a lie which infantilizes people. We enter the Church to worship. And to get strength to take up our Cross.
Do you mind if I ask if you are a resident in the Diocese of Tyler? Because if not, I suggest that worrying about Bishop Strickland, or for that matter Frs Pavone and Altman, is not healthy for your soul. You have never met them, and they should neither help nor hinder your life.
The internet is great, but there is a real danger of importing spiritual battles into our lives that will win us no great prize. If I were in Tyler I might suggest that to the bishop too, but I'm not so I'll leave it.
This, this, this. If it doesn't actually directly affect you--if you're not in the Diocese of Tyler, or in Fr. Altman's parish, or in Mr. Pavone's institute--there's a good chance that you're just watching a Catholic Internet version of Real Housewives.
It's fair to acknowledge that the public statements & actions of a bishop do have an effect beyond just their diocese; particularly when they're claiming to speak on matters that aren't diocese-dependent (like saying getting the covid vaccine is morally unacceptable from Catholic principles...)
That's certainly fair. Particularly if a bunch of people in your life are repeating it.
I do maintain, though, that a lot of this amounts to reality TV. So much of the conversation amounts to "Didja hear what so-and-so said?" "Didja see what so-and-so did?" There's little to be done about it, it often doesn't change anything about our daily lives, but we sure do love getting mad online about it.
I don’t disagree, but can we examine the logical failings of your advice? 1. Those men spend considerable time and money to spread their damaging words. Should that harm simply go unchecked? 2. The whole purpose of publications like the Pillar is to look at and investigate the Church as a whole. If that were not the case, then why not only read and comment on educational and regional articles? 3. I assume you see the irony in you, being nowhere near me and not knowing me telling me to only worry about things that impact me directly.
The crux of your advice is good - worry about cleaning up my corner of the world. I do that as much as possible. Where you erred? Sharing on opinion and a wish is equivalent to importing a spiritual battle.
If we are talking fallacies the obvious one is that "Bishop Strickland is one of the reasons the Church as a whole is in decline." His diocese looks a mixed bag, with administrative problems but a decent number of seminarians. This means it is pretty much like every diocese in the West, except with more seminarians.
The vast majority of people in the Church, let alone the world, have never heard of Bishop Strickland, he cannot possibly be a reason that the Church is in decline. If a bishop tweets and nobody reads it, does it make a decline? This is what I mean by importing a spiritual battle: most people have no inkling Bishop Strickland exists. You could be like most people, except you seem to involved your self in online affairs so much that you think he is a massive problem. If you don't live in Tyler, he just isn't.
First, while we disagree, I appreciate the civil tone of the discussion.
Let me ask some questions. 1. You say that if no one reads the tweet it has no impact, yet people do read them based on his followers and people do see his YouTube. So do you agree he is having an impact? If not, why is he not just communicating through the normal channels of his diocese (most use email). 2. What do you think he is saying and asking be taught to those seminarians? And do you think they will have any influence outside his diocese? 3. There are hundreds of bishops in the US, to my knowledge, his is the only one getting a visit from Rome because of his actions. Do you believe that might be because they see his actions having impact? I have to believe there are other bishops saying some wild things (knowing human nature), yet they get ignored a lot. Why him?
Again, we disagree. Maybe you have more faith in human nature than I do. If so, good for you. That is a recognized failing of mine. I once heard a saying “the pessimist is often right, but the optimist gives the world the hope it needs.” Be glad to be wrong here (wouldn’t be the first time).
I don’t live in Texas. I am interested in what Bishop S. Says. We are all one body,the church.What applies in one place may affect others. We are a global church and not an insular one.
He has 135,000 followers on Twitter, but a diocese, if I recall correctly, with 55,000 Catholics. And he has attacked the Pope. Both of those facts make what he does more than a diocesan problem, even if he runs his diocese perfectly, which he may or may not. If one disagrees with the Pope one contacts him either directly or through the nuncio, not by attacking him and his decisions on social media. Pierre says the synod won't be dealing with doctrinal issues and I take him at his word, and my very Catechism Catholic bishop is going, so I feel confident that whatever comes down won't change the teachings of the Church. No one should be attacking it because it might do something it hasn't done, and if someone attacks it now, that person should be called out, even if it's Bishop Strickland.
"Do you mind if I ask if you are a resident in the Diocese of Tyler? Because if not, I suggest that worrying about Bishop Strickland..."
There is merit in that comment, but for me, the issue with Bp. Strickland is his public commentary about the spiritual status of particular people who he names who are not of his diocese or may not have ever even step foot in it. If he followed your advice, we would all be better off.
I would have thought that this description applies better to the more remote parts of the the New World, which show very little evidence of Catholic thought or theology. Argentina is one that springs to mind.
My problem with Strickland (and likely any critical visitation findings) don’t have anything to do with “welcoming”. Rather his accusations that the Pope has a “program” to undermine the faith. That is a grave charge that itself could be viewed as undermining the faith and potentially promoting schism.
There are a lot of good things to be said for a quiet life of prayer and penance; in particular, this would actually be significantly more influential in the life of the Church than a radio show, a popular Twitter account, a YouTube channel, or whatever other irons a demagogue (who loves Jesus and the truth) has in the fire, and it would be amazing if someone, possibly the Blessed Virgin Mary, could convince him of this. I am sure I could not because I am not convinced of it myself, although it is absolutely true.
St. Paul would disagree with you on this point. For some, it is their calling to live a quiet life of prayer and penance. For others, they are called to go out and boldly proclaim the Truth. I would argue that bishops do not belong in the first, but firmly in the second.
That is a reasonable argument. A fair number of people who want to belong in the first do not get to... e.g. Cure of Ars trying to run away to a monastery (multiple times if I recall correctly).
St. Paul, since we have mentioned him, went out boldly proclaiming the truth, eventually got told off at *the* highest level for doing it wrong (1. wrong truth, 2. breathing murderous threats is right out), spent three years in the desert, and then went back to going out and boldly proclaiming the truth (woe to me if I do not proclaim the Gospel, after all). He would be a good patron saint for Taking A Break From Social Media.
> The bishop compared the apostolic visitation to a visit to a school principal’s office
Where an arbitrary decision is made, with no visibility into the process? And so a diverse student body is left to argue with each other at the lunch tables about whether their in-group is being targeted (obviously the principal has it in for the theater kids, or the skateboarders, or the dudes who have been bitten by radioactive things ...sorry I don't know what the high school cliques are these days)... Possibly, but it would also need to be a principal who takes an arbitrary amount of time to come to the decision which is where the metaphor becomes hard for me to imagine.
The important thing people need to remember is that when it comes time to choose bishops, the BEST priests are not chosen. Rather, the SAFEST priests are chosen. Will this man rock the boat? Will he be controversial? Will he upset people? If the answer is no, then he'll make it. When +Strickland was appointed, he was considered a safe candidate. I'm not sure if you can go back and find it, but Rocco Palmo gushed with unrestricted joy when he was appointed. Over time, the good bishop developed into something else. The something else he became is not becoming of what is expected of a bishop today.
When I first moved to the diocese I heard great things about him. But over time how he handled the chancery, moving priests and school administrators and making the Institute a priority really changed my mind about him.
He admits he made mistakes. I'm willing to cut him slack on personnel issues and being taken for a ride by those who wanted to start the institute. Not that his decisions were correct, but these are prudential judgements and not declarations of objective morality. All in all, it sounds like the diocese is in good shape financially and for the future (a good number of seminarians). When he's removed (he certainly will be) there will be changes, but I'm willing to bet that the next bishop will be more of the milquetoast type Pope Francis (really Blaise Cupich) wants. Be careful of what you wish for.
The gravest matter with him is his public commentary on the spiritual status of people by name who are not of his diocese and never stepped foot in it. That, in itself, is a grave matter. He needs correction.
Is there any suggestion he cannot be in Tyler? My point if he is to correct those of not his diocese (by name and publicly), he might be corrected by those outside his diocese.
It is an open question, but it seems that once these visitations happen, it is only a matter of time before the bishop is replaced. In general, I appreciate Bishop Strickland and his outspoken nature. He's gone over the limit a few times (esp his Tweet about the pope's magisterium), but otherwise he is an effective communicator with the average interested Catholic. The pope and those who will give him advice need to consider that it may be better to keep him as the ordinary of Tyler instead of a retired bishop with time on his hands. He could also be appointed an auxiliary of another diocese.
I was in the diocese until December and I still get a lot of emails from the diocese. It was interesting that this week was the first time that I had seen his blog mention what activities he was attending in the diocese in the 10 years I was a member. And I have seen personally he is not a good administrator.When he started St. Philip’s Institute it seemed that it came a priority instead of his flock in the diocese which has a large area, but not in the number of Catholics in the region.
I’m becoming convinced that nothing good comes of priests and bishops becoming big social media stars. And I think this cuts across ideological lines in the church. Whether it’s Fr Martin or Bishop Strickland. The nature of social media, the “hot take” culture, the desire to get likes and retweets, the fact that almost nobody views the comments of others charitably, none of it is conducive to spreading the gospel in my opinion.
I know we’ve got to be where the people are but I think this is a real challenge for the church. I’m not sure what the answer is but I really believe that all these social media influencer clergymen guys would be better off if they’d take a lengthy sabbatical from social media.
This is what I came here to say. I don't know the bishop or the diocese, but I do know what social media, especially Twitter, can do. Even the most faithful and well-intentioned can fall. The like-clicks are a drug, and social addiction is possible for the best of characters.
I agree that it can be bad. But I don’t agree that “nothing good comes from it.” Bishop Barron is 100% evangelizing using the internet. I am one of those converts that was influenced by him greatly. I also know that he has helped many to revert and actively practice the faith. Some good can come from it. I however think it takes just the right person. Bishop Barron doesn’t strike me as the type who’s doing it just to get his name out there.
Bishop's fervor for the truth comes from his fervor for Jesus in the Eucharist. He is so loved by so many here, yet he is never self-referential, or self-congratulatory. His preaching is never,
"we have it right, they are wrong," never "us vs. them," his attitude is "everyone vs. the truth," are we living it or not?
In our hearts, we all know +Strickland is right. After 10 years, it should be obvious to one and all that Pope Francis has an agenda to water down or jettison the hard teachings of the Catholic faith regarding sin, sexual morality, repentance, etc. Now I don't doubt that many prelates, including the Holy Father, are sincere in their belief that this pivot away from the catechism is essential for the Church to survive in its third millennium, don't gaslight us and tell us that it's not happening.
> After 10 years, it should be obvious to one and all that Pope Francis has an agenda to water down or jettison the hard teachings of the Catholic faith
Of course he does! And why do I know this? Because in my heart, I know that *I* have an agenda to water down or jettison the hard teachings of the Catholic faith. If you doubt this, you have not considered how very hard they are. Why would I *not* have an agenda to rebel against the idea that it is necessary for me to pick up "my" cross (I do not even get to pick which one it is, at, as Clerically Speaking said whimsically recently, "the cross boutique"), carry it, cooperate in being nailed to it, and surrender myself to *die* on it. Anyone who looks into their heart and finds no rebellion against this thought is either a saint already or not looking very hard. My task is to notice when I am ACTING ON (beginning with my outward actions, and working backwards to first movements and the consent of the will if I ever get that far) this agenda, and instead not act on it, probably by begging for divine assistance in the moment. It is of very little moment to me how well Pope Francis is doing at subverting and thwarting his own interior agenda, particularly if it distracts me from awareness of mine.
I disagree with you. I think, as Archbishop Chaput commented long ago, that the secular press consistently misreads Francis to twist what he says to fit their agenda. I do occasionally disagree with what he does even in light of the Catechism, with which, unlike the secular press, I am reasonably familiar. Italy had a 10% death rate from the coronavirus, and they were one of the first countries to get hit with it. I think he looked at the importance of using vaccines, even if it involved a remote cooperation with evil, as appropriate because of his location. In the United States, Trump forced American industries to make ventilators, which saved a lot of American lives and drastically reduced the number of American fatalities. So someone in America might look at the issue very differently from someone in Italy. That doesn't make the Pope wrong.
In my heart I know no such thing. In my humble opinion, Pope Francis' agenda is to help people apply the truths of the faith to difficult aspects of their lives in a world that is changing and making faithful living more challenging. As a pastor, I see every day how hard that is.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, Pater. It's fascinating to me the reaction of priests to this burn-down-the-house pontificate. There seem to be 3 broad categories:
(1) Unbridled horror. These are the priests who will tell you behind closed doors that there is something truly rotten happening in Rome, and they and their like-minded confreres are heart-broken, angry and very worried.
(2) Gaslighting. "It's all in your imagination." Pope Francis teaches everything his predecessors did, they say. He hasn't changed anything and won't change anything. Sure, he's developed things a bit, but it's the same old Catholic Church with the same old Catholic catechism. "You've heard he's gutted the pro-life and pro-family institutes JP2 founded? Hogwash. Nonsense. He's strengthened them!"
(3) Self-interested cheerleaders. "Oh, church teaching on homosexual acts is going to be revised from the category of "grave sin" to "beautiful expression of God's love? Count me in."
In my humble opinion, readers with experience in reading church news will interpret events, persons, and personalities different than others. Opinions vary and are fleeting. It's a temptation for myself to weight in, but my opinion is nothing but a human opinion. Let's pray for holy mother church & both sides of the church to espouse greater holiness.
Hello all! As we continue to discuss this apostolic visitation, may I remind you of the comment policy here at The Pillar: Christian charity.
I believe that we can discuss substantive issues candidly and frankly, with real disagreement and engagement, while modeling at the same time charity for both our interlocutors and those whom we are discussing. I expect that of Pillar subscribers, actually.
I think it is inaccurate to describe the Veritatis Splendor project as having "flamed out." Although some of the initial leadership left the project, the community is still slowly developing and growing.
If the purpose of the visitation is administrative and financial, I would look forward to the day when such a visitation is done not by bishops but by the Holy See sending qualified laypersons with expertise in finances and administration.
Bishop Strickland is one of the reasons the church as a whole is in decline. Him being gone would be a good thing.
Can you elaborate on how +Strickland is part of the problem?
He sides with extreme viewpoints and gives cover, support, and encouragement to those who are preaching divisiveness about the faith. While he doesn't say it explicitly, the message he sends is that the Church isn't welcoming. As someone who struggles with the Church (not with Faith in God), he is the exact reason I rebel against it.
who exactly are you talking about? who is not welcoming according to you?
I'm not going to get into a protracted debate: but when you support priests like Fr. Pavone and Fr. Altman - who were duly and (in my opinion) rightfully punished by the Church - and been as critical of the Pope as he has been, things are very clear.
ok one abortion and other traditional salvation of souls priest. Then pope. What do you want? It's who the Lord chooses not anybody else. It's who He welcomes not you or me or any pope. It's His Church not anybody elses. I say the Jesus prayer because I have sinned. I go to Mass not because of anyone else (What are they to me whether they welcome me or not. The Lord has). Forget politics. As Christ said to Peter when he wanted to know what John was dong "What is that to you?" Forget about the others. Otherwise you will not grow in sanctity. Forget the welcome. It's a lie which infantilizes people. We enter the Church to worship. And to get strength to take up our Cross.
Do you mind if I ask if you are a resident in the Diocese of Tyler? Because if not, I suggest that worrying about Bishop Strickland, or for that matter Frs Pavone and Altman, is not healthy for your soul. You have never met them, and they should neither help nor hinder your life.
The internet is great, but there is a real danger of importing spiritual battles into our lives that will win us no great prize. If I were in Tyler I might suggest that to the bishop too, but I'm not so I'll leave it.
This, this, this. If it doesn't actually directly affect you--if you're not in the Diocese of Tyler, or in Fr. Altman's parish, or in Mr. Pavone's institute--there's a good chance that you're just watching a Catholic Internet version of Real Housewives.
It's fair to acknowledge that the public statements & actions of a bishop do have an effect beyond just their diocese; particularly when they're claiming to speak on matters that aren't diocese-dependent (like saying getting the covid vaccine is morally unacceptable from Catholic principles...)
That's certainly fair. Particularly if a bunch of people in your life are repeating it.
I do maintain, though, that a lot of this amounts to reality TV. So much of the conversation amounts to "Didja hear what so-and-so said?" "Didja see what so-and-so did?" There's little to be done about it, it often doesn't change anything about our daily lives, but we sure do love getting mad online about it.
I don’t disagree, but can we examine the logical failings of your advice? 1. Those men spend considerable time and money to spread their damaging words. Should that harm simply go unchecked? 2. The whole purpose of publications like the Pillar is to look at and investigate the Church as a whole. If that were not the case, then why not only read and comment on educational and regional articles? 3. I assume you see the irony in you, being nowhere near me and not knowing me telling me to only worry about things that impact me directly.
The crux of your advice is good - worry about cleaning up my corner of the world. I do that as much as possible. Where you erred? Sharing on opinion and a wish is equivalent to importing a spiritual battle.
If we are talking fallacies the obvious one is that "Bishop Strickland is one of the reasons the Church as a whole is in decline." His diocese looks a mixed bag, with administrative problems but a decent number of seminarians. This means it is pretty much like every diocese in the West, except with more seminarians.
The vast majority of people in the Church, let alone the world, have never heard of Bishop Strickland, he cannot possibly be a reason that the Church is in decline. If a bishop tweets and nobody reads it, does it make a decline? This is what I mean by importing a spiritual battle: most people have no inkling Bishop Strickland exists. You could be like most people, except you seem to involved your self in online affairs so much that you think he is a massive problem. If you don't live in Tyler, he just isn't.
First, while we disagree, I appreciate the civil tone of the discussion.
Let me ask some questions. 1. You say that if no one reads the tweet it has no impact, yet people do read them based on his followers and people do see his YouTube. So do you agree he is having an impact? If not, why is he not just communicating through the normal channels of his diocese (most use email). 2. What do you think he is saying and asking be taught to those seminarians? And do you think they will have any influence outside his diocese? 3. There are hundreds of bishops in the US, to my knowledge, his is the only one getting a visit from Rome because of his actions. Do you believe that might be because they see his actions having impact? I have to believe there are other bishops saying some wild things (knowing human nature), yet they get ignored a lot. Why him?
Again, we disagree. Maybe you have more faith in human nature than I do. If so, good for you. That is a recognized failing of mine. I once heard a saying “the pessimist is often right, but the optimist gives the world the hope it needs.” Be glad to be wrong here (wouldn’t be the first time).
I don’t live in Texas. I am interested in what Bishop S. Says. We are all one body,the church.What applies in one place may affect others. We are a global church and not an insular one.
He has 135,000 followers on Twitter, but a diocese, if I recall correctly, with 55,000 Catholics. And he has attacked the Pope. Both of those facts make what he does more than a diocesan problem, even if he runs his diocese perfectly, which he may or may not. If one disagrees with the Pope one contacts him either directly or through the nuncio, not by attacking him and his decisions on social media. Pierre says the synod won't be dealing with doctrinal issues and I take him at his word, and my very Catechism Catholic bishop is going, so I feel confident that whatever comes down won't change the teachings of the Church. No one should be attacking it because it might do something it hasn't done, and if someone attacks it now, that person should be called out, even if it's Bishop Strickland.
"Do you mind if I ask if you are a resident in the Diocese of Tyler? Because if not, I suggest that worrying about Bishop Strickland..."
There is merit in that comment, but for me, the issue with Bp. Strickland is his public commentary about the spiritual status of particular people who he names who are not of his diocese or may not have ever even step foot in it. If he followed your advice, we would all be better off.
It is a very commonly held belief by much (perhaps a majority) of the world’s Catholic theologians that American Catholicism has limited exposure to Catholic thought or theology, and instead supplement their training in philosophy and doctrine with politics and ideology. https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/guest-voices/cultural-disarmament-progressive-catholic-bishops
I would have thought that this description applies better to the more remote parts of the the New World, which show very little evidence of Catholic thought or theology. Argentina is one that springs to mind.
My problem with Strickland (and likely any critical visitation findings) don’t have anything to do with “welcoming”. Rather his accusations that the Pope has a “program” to undermine the faith. That is a grave charge that itself could be viewed as undermining the faith and potentially promoting schism.
It's objectively true. In the past decade we've been asked to accept outright heresy.
There are a lot of good things to be said for a quiet life of prayer and penance; in particular, this would actually be significantly more influential in the life of the Church than a radio show, a popular Twitter account, a YouTube channel, or whatever other irons a demagogue (who loves Jesus and the truth) has in the fire, and it would be amazing if someone, possibly the Blessed Virgin Mary, could convince him of this. I am sure I could not because I am not convinced of it myself, although it is absolutely true.
St. Paul would disagree with you on this point. For some, it is their calling to live a quiet life of prayer and penance. For others, they are called to go out and boldly proclaim the Truth. I would argue that bishops do not belong in the first, but firmly in the second.
That is a reasonable argument. A fair number of people who want to belong in the first do not get to... e.g. Cure of Ars trying to run away to a monastery (multiple times if I recall correctly).
St. Paul, since we have mentioned him, went out boldly proclaiming the truth, eventually got told off at *the* highest level for doing it wrong (1. wrong truth, 2. breathing murderous threats is right out), spent three years in the desert, and then went back to going out and boldly proclaiming the truth (woe to me if I do not proclaim the Gospel, after all). He would be a good patron saint for Taking A Break From Social Media.
> The bishop compared the apostolic visitation to a visit to a school principal’s office
Where an arbitrary decision is made, with no visibility into the process? And so a diverse student body is left to argue with each other at the lunch tables about whether their in-group is being targeted (obviously the principal has it in for the theater kids, or the skateboarders, or the dudes who have been bitten by radioactive things ...sorry I don't know what the high school cliques are these days)... Possibly, but it would also need to be a principal who takes an arbitrary amount of time to come to the decision which is where the metaphor becomes hard for me to imagine.
The important thing people need to remember is that when it comes time to choose bishops, the BEST priests are not chosen. Rather, the SAFEST priests are chosen. Will this man rock the boat? Will he be controversial? Will he upset people? If the answer is no, then he'll make it. When +Strickland was appointed, he was considered a safe candidate. I'm not sure if you can go back and find it, but Rocco Palmo gushed with unrestricted joy when he was appointed. Over time, the good bishop developed into something else. The something else he became is not becoming of what is expected of a bishop today.
When I first moved to the diocese I heard great things about him. But over time how he handled the chancery, moving priests and school administrators and making the Institute a priority really changed my mind about him.
He admits he made mistakes. I'm willing to cut him slack on personnel issues and being taken for a ride by those who wanted to start the institute. Not that his decisions were correct, but these are prudential judgements and not declarations of objective morality. All in all, it sounds like the diocese is in good shape financially and for the future (a good number of seminarians). When he's removed (he certainly will be) there will be changes, but I'm willing to bet that the next bishop will be more of the milquetoast type Pope Francis (really Blaise Cupich) wants. Be careful of what you wish for.
The gravest matter with him is his public commentary on the spiritual status of people by name who are not of his diocese and never stepped foot in it. That, in itself, is a grave matter. He needs correction.
Correction is one thing. Being removed from one's diocese is another.
Is there any suggestion he cannot be in Tyler? My point if he is to correct those of not his diocese (by name and publicly), he might be corrected by those outside his diocese.
It is an open question, but it seems that once these visitations happen, it is only a matter of time before the bishop is replaced. In general, I appreciate Bishop Strickland and his outspoken nature. He's gone over the limit a few times (esp his Tweet about the pope's magisterium), but otherwise he is an effective communicator with the average interested Catholic. The pope and those who will give him advice need to consider that it may be better to keep him as the ordinary of Tyler instead of a retired bishop with time on his hands. He could also be appointed an auxiliary of another diocese.
I was in the diocese until December and I still get a lot of emails from the diocese. It was interesting that this week was the first time that I had seen his blog mention what activities he was attending in the diocese in the 10 years I was a member. And I have seen personally he is not a good administrator.When he started St. Philip’s Institute it seemed that it came a priority instead of his flock in the diocese which has a large area, but not in the number of Catholics in the region.
I am curious: in canon law, is there any rule about bishops not being chosen from the priests of the diocese? I thought I had heard that.
I’m becoming convinced that nothing good comes of priests and bishops becoming big social media stars. And I think this cuts across ideological lines in the church. Whether it’s Fr Martin or Bishop Strickland. The nature of social media, the “hot take” culture, the desire to get likes and retweets, the fact that almost nobody views the comments of others charitably, none of it is conducive to spreading the gospel in my opinion.
I know we’ve got to be where the people are but I think this is a real challenge for the church. I’m not sure what the answer is but I really believe that all these social media influencer clergymen guys would be better off if they’d take a lengthy sabbatical from social media.
This is what I came here to say. I don't know the bishop or the diocese, but I do know what social media, especially Twitter, can do. Even the most faithful and well-intentioned can fall. The like-clicks are a drug, and social addiction is possible for the best of characters.
I agree that it can be bad. But I don’t agree that “nothing good comes from it.” Bishop Barron is 100% evangelizing using the internet. I am one of those converts that was influenced by him greatly. I also know that he has helped many to revert and actively practice the faith. Some good can come from it. I however think it takes just the right person. Bishop Barron doesn’t strike me as the type who’s doing it just to get his name out there.
Bishop's fervor for the truth comes from his fervor for Jesus in the Eucharist. He is so loved by so many here, yet he is never self-referential, or self-congratulatory. His preaching is never,
"we have it right, they are wrong," never "us vs. them," his attitude is "everyone vs. the truth," are we living it or not?
"we have it right, they are wrong" and "us vs. them" sounds like half of his Tweets, to be honest.
Bp Kicanas did a visitation on the Eparchy of Parma under Bp Milan Lach as well. I wonder if he's become the go to guy for these things.
"出る杭は打たれるとは"
"The nail that sticks up gets hammered down..."
(old Japanese saying)
In our hearts, we all know +Strickland is right. After 10 years, it should be obvious to one and all that Pope Francis has an agenda to water down or jettison the hard teachings of the Catholic faith regarding sin, sexual morality, repentance, etc. Now I don't doubt that many prelates, including the Holy Father, are sincere in their belief that this pivot away from the catechism is essential for the Church to survive in its third millennium, don't gaslight us and tell us that it's not happening.
Francis has an agenda for the truth, because the truth will set us free. that may involve blowing a few traditionalist minds on the way. :)
> After 10 years, it should be obvious to one and all that Pope Francis has an agenda to water down or jettison the hard teachings of the Catholic faith
Of course he does! And why do I know this? Because in my heart, I know that *I* have an agenda to water down or jettison the hard teachings of the Catholic faith. If you doubt this, you have not considered how very hard they are. Why would I *not* have an agenda to rebel against the idea that it is necessary for me to pick up "my" cross (I do not even get to pick which one it is, at, as Clerically Speaking said whimsically recently, "the cross boutique"), carry it, cooperate in being nailed to it, and surrender myself to *die* on it. Anyone who looks into their heart and finds no rebellion against this thought is either a saint already or not looking very hard. My task is to notice when I am ACTING ON (beginning with my outward actions, and working backwards to first movements and the consent of the will if I ever get that far) this agenda, and instead not act on it, probably by begging for divine assistance in the moment. It is of very little moment to me how well Pope Francis is doing at subverting and thwarting his own interior agenda, particularly if it distracts me from awareness of mine.
I disagree with you. I think, as Archbishop Chaput commented long ago, that the secular press consistently misreads Francis to twist what he says to fit their agenda. I do occasionally disagree with what he does even in light of the Catechism, with which, unlike the secular press, I am reasonably familiar. Italy had a 10% death rate from the coronavirus, and they were one of the first countries to get hit with it. I think he looked at the importance of using vaccines, even if it involved a remote cooperation with evil, as appropriate because of his location. In the United States, Trump forced American industries to make ventilators, which saved a lot of American lives and drastically reduced the number of American fatalities. So someone in America might look at the issue very differently from someone in Italy. That doesn't make the Pope wrong.
Trump, in his negative regard for facial masks, also directly contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths in the United States.
Probably fewer than his ventilators saved. But you're talking to someone who developed asthma due to the face mask requirement.
That is not medically possible.
In my heart I know no such thing. In my humble opinion, Pope Francis' agenda is to help people apply the truths of the faith to difficult aspects of their lives in a world that is changing and making faithful living more challenging. As a pastor, I see every day how hard that is.
If you wanted liberal protestantism, you should have stuck with Luther, Pastor Scott.
Ok, that devolved quickly. And that's Father Scott to you.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, Pater. It's fascinating to me the reaction of priests to this burn-down-the-house pontificate. There seem to be 3 broad categories:
(1) Unbridled horror. These are the priests who will tell you behind closed doors that there is something truly rotten happening in Rome, and they and their like-minded confreres are heart-broken, angry and very worried.
(2) Gaslighting. "It's all in your imagination." Pope Francis teaches everything his predecessors did, they say. He hasn't changed anything and won't change anything. Sure, he's developed things a bit, but it's the same old Catholic Church with the same old Catholic catechism. "You've heard he's gutted the pro-life and pro-family institutes JP2 founded? Hogwash. Nonsense. He's strengthened them!"
(3) Self-interested cheerleaders. "Oh, church teaching on homosexual acts is going to be revised from the category of "grave sin" to "beautiful expression of God's love? Count me in."
In my humble opinion, readers with experience in reading church news will interpret events, persons, and personalities different than others. Opinions vary and are fleeting. It's a temptation for myself to weight in, but my opinion is nothing but a human opinion. Let's pray for holy mother church & both sides of the church to espouse greater holiness.
Hello all! As we continue to discuss this apostolic visitation, may I remind you of the comment policy here at The Pillar: Christian charity.
I believe that we can discuss substantive issues candidly and frankly, with real disagreement and engagement, while modeling at the same time charity for both our interlocutors and those whom we are discussing. I expect that of Pillar subscribers, actually.
Thank you!
We are in the world, not of it. I am proud of Bishop Strickland and praise God for his courage, charity and devotion to truth.
Ditto.
I think it is inaccurate to describe the Veritatis Splendor project as having "flamed out." Although some of the initial leadership left the project, the community is still slowly developing and growing.
If the purpose of the visitation is administrative and financial, I would look forward to the day when such a visitation is done not by bishops but by the Holy See sending qualified laypersons with expertise in finances and administration.