I am not interested in wading into the contentious (and often obsessive, on both sides) controversy surrounding Strickland. But, in trying to discern past my own emotional reactions and look at this with a lens of love of the Church and desire for unity therein, the following thoughts come to mind about situations like this in general:
I am not interested in wading into the contentious (and often obsessive, on both sides) controversy surrounding Strickland. But, in trying to discern past my own emotional reactions and look at this with a lens of love of the Church and desire for unity therein, the following thoughts come to mind about situations like this in general:
1. In this moment it feels like we're seeing some of the worst instincts of renaissancism and Americanism, neither of which are edifying presences in the Church: renaissancism in that the Pope, as pointed out by JD, has a tendency to operate according to his own whim, irrespective of canon law and typical proceedings, evidenced in his handling of bishops as well as abusive priests; Americanism in that Strickland has resorted to the unfortunately very American methods of generalized public protest, inflammatory and hyperbolic rhetoric, and mobilization (whether intentional or simply permitted) of supporters among the laity to try to address ecclesial concerns. I don't like either of these tendencies at all, and I pray that they may pass away from us.
2. We as the faithful, especially those in positions of influence by means of media or popular following, need to stop immediately leaping to schism, heresy, and excommunication. At times it feels like there's almost a bloodlust there, an eagerness to see people defenestrated from the Church, and I've seen it across the spectrum of ideologies. The Church has precise definitions, mechanisms, and processes for schism, heresy, and excommunication; those of us without that expertise need not become armchair pundits about it. (To this end, I am very, very grateful for the Pillar and its staff for their measured and temperate handling of these topics! Sometimes it feels like you are the only Catholic medium able to maintain its composure.) It should cause us pause if sudden and large crowds of the laity start effectively shouting "Crucify him, crucify him!" about anybody, regardless of their guilt or lack thereof.
3. I...had a third thought but now it's gone. I think I'm fatigued of breathing an atmosphere of alternating outrage and triumphalism all the time. Maybe it's time to get out into the woods for a bit haha
I am in total agreement on #2. Although it is somewhat amusing to look at the Inquisition as a comparably moderate, careful, and temperate in its handling of schism, heresy, and apostasy cases. They could take years to determine that a person was both guilty and incorrigible. We seem to do both in minutes now.
respectfully, I don’t believe we need to follow the line of thought that there are people with a blood lust to throw people out of the window. I would suggest that in the spirit of mercy, we would like Bishop Strickland to return to the faith, and if he has issues that can be supported by the facts, then he should bring it up with the bishops and the proper channels. His demonstration in the public media to gain attention for himself, justifying his opinions, regardless of whether they have some truth or not shows more to his character of being separated from the faithful. I wish someone close to him, would bring him to proper dialogue or psychological therapy to help him reconsider his approach to generating so much emotional laced accusations against the faithful. If he has a case, he should layout the facts instead of talking trash against the bishops.
Note: when someone excommunicate himself from the Catholic Church, it’s because their behavior is not ordered to the truth of its teachings. Excommunication is meant to draw the individual into repentance in an effort to return them back to the faith. The person does it to themselves and if necessary, the church recognizes it and makes an announcement. It appears likely that he has already moved in the direction of schism. His words over the years and his seemingly arrogant approach to judging others unworthy to be in the church does not help support his case.
I agree with you. To clarify my comment, I am just identifying a attitudinal tendency I have encountered where, instead of the measured and corrective response born of charity and implemented through the proper channels as you describe, discourse has tended to leap quickly to the "get him outta here" kind of attitude, often bandying around language of schism and heresy in a way that obfuscates the truth rather than clarifies it--and often carries a tone of glee, a sort of "heh heh now s/he's got it coming". Both in cases where heresy and/or schism are actually present, and in cases where it is not, this kind of discourse seems to impede a just and charitable response. Does that make sense?
I want to be clear that I am not attempting to justify +Strickland's behaviors or deflect concern away from his direction of action. I'm sort of zooming out and looking at the way American Catholic culture talks about difficult situations like this one.
I am not interested in wading into the contentious (and often obsessive, on both sides) controversy surrounding Strickland. But, in trying to discern past my own emotional reactions and look at this with a lens of love of the Church and desire for unity therein, the following thoughts come to mind about situations like this in general:
1. In this moment it feels like we're seeing some of the worst instincts of renaissancism and Americanism, neither of which are edifying presences in the Church: renaissancism in that the Pope, as pointed out by JD, has a tendency to operate according to his own whim, irrespective of canon law and typical proceedings, evidenced in his handling of bishops as well as abusive priests; Americanism in that Strickland has resorted to the unfortunately very American methods of generalized public protest, inflammatory and hyperbolic rhetoric, and mobilization (whether intentional or simply permitted) of supporters among the laity to try to address ecclesial concerns. I don't like either of these tendencies at all, and I pray that they may pass away from us.
2. We as the faithful, especially those in positions of influence by means of media or popular following, need to stop immediately leaping to schism, heresy, and excommunication. At times it feels like there's almost a bloodlust there, an eagerness to see people defenestrated from the Church, and I've seen it across the spectrum of ideologies. The Church has precise definitions, mechanisms, and processes for schism, heresy, and excommunication; those of us without that expertise need not become armchair pundits about it. (To this end, I am very, very grateful for the Pillar and its staff for their measured and temperate handling of these topics! Sometimes it feels like you are the only Catholic medium able to maintain its composure.) It should cause us pause if sudden and large crowds of the laity start effectively shouting "Crucify him, crucify him!" about anybody, regardless of their guilt or lack thereof.
3. I...had a third thought but now it's gone. I think I'm fatigued of breathing an atmosphere of alternating outrage and triumphalism all the time. Maybe it's time to get out into the woods for a bit haha
I am in total agreement on #2. Although it is somewhat amusing to look at the Inquisition as a comparably moderate, careful, and temperate in its handling of schism, heresy, and apostasy cases. They could take years to determine that a person was both guilty and incorrigible. We seem to do both in minutes now.
I also agree on #3.
respectfully, I don’t believe we need to follow the line of thought that there are people with a blood lust to throw people out of the window. I would suggest that in the spirit of mercy, we would like Bishop Strickland to return to the faith, and if he has issues that can be supported by the facts, then he should bring it up with the bishops and the proper channels. His demonstration in the public media to gain attention for himself, justifying his opinions, regardless of whether they have some truth or not shows more to his character of being separated from the faithful. I wish someone close to him, would bring him to proper dialogue or psychological therapy to help him reconsider his approach to generating so much emotional laced accusations against the faithful. If he has a case, he should layout the facts instead of talking trash against the bishops.
Note: when someone excommunicate himself from the Catholic Church, it’s because their behavior is not ordered to the truth of its teachings. Excommunication is meant to draw the individual into repentance in an effort to return them back to the faith. The person does it to themselves and if necessary, the church recognizes it and makes an announcement. It appears likely that he has already moved in the direction of schism. His words over the years and his seemingly arrogant approach to judging others unworthy to be in the church does not help support his case.
I agree with you. To clarify my comment, I am just identifying a attitudinal tendency I have encountered where, instead of the measured and corrective response born of charity and implemented through the proper channels as you describe, discourse has tended to leap quickly to the "get him outta here" kind of attitude, often bandying around language of schism and heresy in a way that obfuscates the truth rather than clarifies it--and often carries a tone of glee, a sort of "heh heh now s/he's got it coming". Both in cases where heresy and/or schism are actually present, and in cases where it is not, this kind of discourse seems to impede a just and charitable response. Does that make sense?
I want to be clear that I am not attempting to justify +Strickland's behaviors or deflect concern away from his direction of action. I'm sort of zooming out and looking at the way American Catholic culture talks about difficult situations like this one.