I think there are 2 problems with charging Strickland with a crime relating to his castigation of bishops or the Pope. First, that it would have to be shown that he is incorrect in his assessment (even though there are Cardinals who have said essentially the same thing, with less fiery rhetoric), and second, that he routinely calls for p…
I think there are 2 problems with charging Strickland with a crime relating to his castigation of bishops or the Pope. First, that it would have to be shown that he is incorrect in his assessment (even though there are Cardinals who have said essentially the same thing, with less fiery rhetoric), and second, that he routinely calls for people to love and pray for them.
On the PR level, the Pope's reluctance to remove bishops and priests who were complicit or engaged in sexual abuse, but willingness to remove Strickland without stating why, is not exactly a good look, and continuing down that path might do more to underscore Strickland's words than anything Strickland himself says. It's hard to imagine circumstances that result in a lover of Truth tolerating such things, as complex as Vatican politics can be. It is impossible to imagine that such toleration does not undermine the faith of many people. After all, "Character is conduct."
It is odd that he did not elect to address the bishops directly.
For what it's worth, I don't think a trial about inciting animosity or provoking disobedience would go into whether he's *right* in his criticisms. That would almost certainly be ruled as distinct from his actions.
Weird. You'd think, if the criticisms are correct, then the responsibility for inciting animosity would fall on the person who did the bad things. It's not like rational people blame people getting upset over, say, theft or murder, on the person who called the cops or the news media.
Not that I don't believe you. I'm an American, and therefore accustomed to legal processes doing irrational things.
I hope "they" just let him do his thing rather than "make a martyr out of him". I know people who think he is a voice of conscience and that he represents some portion of the Church, albeit rather small.
"It is odd that he did not elect to address the bishops directly." I would guess that it is because unless things are brought out publicly, nothing will be done.
Who says you cannot do both? Nothing is stoping individual bishops attending and then praying rosary’s and making long statements about how much they love the Pope outside. Why would you reject the seat at the bishops conference unless you are tying to insulate yourself from fraternal connection and correction?
Yes, and unfortunately his way of expressing his concerns outside looks to me a lot like attention and publicity seeking rather than a desire to actually effect change.
fwiw, if he'd registered to attend the bishops' conference meeting, he could have taken the floor during a public session, livestreamed and broadcast on tv, and read (most of) his letter -- there is a five minute time limit on individual statements.
I think there are 2 problems with charging Strickland with a crime relating to his castigation of bishops or the Pope. First, that it would have to be shown that he is incorrect in his assessment (even though there are Cardinals who have said essentially the same thing, with less fiery rhetoric), and second, that he routinely calls for people to love and pray for them.
On the PR level, the Pope's reluctance to remove bishops and priests who were complicit or engaged in sexual abuse, but willingness to remove Strickland without stating why, is not exactly a good look, and continuing down that path might do more to underscore Strickland's words than anything Strickland himself says. It's hard to imagine circumstances that result in a lover of Truth tolerating such things, as complex as Vatican politics can be. It is impossible to imagine that such toleration does not undermine the faith of many people. After all, "Character is conduct."
It is odd that he did not elect to address the bishops directly.
Thoughtful reflections.
For what it's worth, I don't think a trial about inciting animosity or provoking disobedience would go into whether he's *right* in his criticisms. That would almost certainly be ruled as distinct from his actions.
As least, that's what I'd expect.
Weird. You'd think, if the criticisms are correct, then the responsibility for inciting animosity would fall on the person who did the bad things. It's not like rational people blame people getting upset over, say, theft or murder, on the person who called the cops or the news media.
Not that I don't believe you. I'm an American, and therefore accustomed to legal processes doing irrational things.
I hope "they" just let him do his thing rather than "make a martyr out of him". I know people who think he is a voice of conscience and that he represents some portion of the Church, albeit rather small.
"It is odd that he did not elect to address the bishops directly." I would guess that it is because unless things are brought out publicly, nothing will be done.
Who says you cannot do both? Nothing is stoping individual bishops attending and then praying rosary’s and making long statements about how much they love the Pope outside. Why would you reject the seat at the bishops conference unless you are tying to insulate yourself from fraternal connection and correction?
The only good reason I can think of, is if he's already tried that repeatedly. There are a lot of ways to communicate with other bishops privately.
Yes, and unfortunately his way of expressing his concerns outside looks to me a lot like attention and publicity seeking rather than a desire to actually effect change.
fwiw, if he'd registered to attend the bishops' conference meeting, he could have taken the floor during a public session, livestreamed and broadcast on tv, and read (most of) his letter -- there is a five minute time limit on individual statements.