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 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 see no way that Strickland's words could be construed as “publicly incit[ing] hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical office.” He reiterates again and again his love for the Holy Father and his respect of the office of the Papacy. Is it now a canonical crime to disagree with the Pope's words at an informal meeting with youth in Singapore?
If Strickland feels he needs to do this, it seems to me he should be VERY specific about what he thinks Francis has done or said that contradicts the faith and support those accusations with evidence. Vague accusations aren't really helpful.
Situations like this one put me in mind of The Screwtape Letters. It's so easy for the Evil One to twist our good intentions, to cloud our minds and partially blind us to facts that would disrupt a narrative, and to lead us to march with confident self-righteousness down the wrong path.
May the Good Lord protect Bishop Strickland's heart, and prevent him from committing any mortal sin. And all the rest of us, too.
Church Law and US Law are two very different systems of justice. The Holy Father is a Jesuit at heart, spiritually speaking. Ignatius.
At the same time he desires a listening Church, transparency yet never answered the Dubia. He's trying to govern with a both and approach. The agreement with China, Jimmy Lai, Cardinal Zhen all done in secret. The Pope seems at war with himself. Rich in mercy and justice None of his statements are From The Chair of
Peter thus far. He has stated the door is closed on female ordination. He said Gender ideology is ‘one of the most dangerous ideological
colonizations’ today. The Death Penalty is a non-negotiable. The Church and Gospel are ours (the laity) to flourish and grow. I don't always appreciate his positions but I pray for him every day. My Rosary
is offered for the Bishops &
priests. Follow Jesus. Stand for Jesus. It's a narrow road.
Who cherry picked what? The Dubia were answered. The Pope chose not meet with the Cardinals who authored them. No one was making Pope Francis look bad.
> For his own part, Strickland said his observation of the papacy had reached a “devastating conclusion” — “the man who occupies the Chair of St. Peter does not love the truth.”
I think as an exercise I will translate "the man who sits on the Chair of St. Peter loves the truth" and "the man, sitting on the Chair of St. Peter, loves the truth" and "the man, loving the truth, sits on the Chair of St. Peter" and then move on to the same in aorist tense (I am still taking Ancient Greek and if I stick it out to the next semester we will get into one of the Gospels which is why I am melting my brain over e.g. Chapter 13 in Athenaze, but I have to remind myself of it pretty often.) The process of learning a language by being dumped headfirst into a bucket of it (or "immersion", or in short, drowning in two inches of water) requires either a real need in natural circumstances (like a little kid learning language in the first place) or a determined trust that although it is constantly frustrating, it is "working as intended" so don't quit now because spending an hour today on it will pay off (even though it feels useless, or like a terrible failure, or both at once) whereas spending an hour getting mad on social media will not pay off (even though it feels great like I'm accomplishing something). Actually, though, I talked to someone today who accidentally learned to understand Japanese by watching a lot of anime(?) with both English and Japanese subtitles on at the same time (he reports that he cannot speak or write it, only understand it, and was interested/surprised to learn experimentally how compartmentalized these abilities are from one another). We pray because 1. we need to in order to obtain something, or 2. we trust that prayer will change us in some way although it only seems to be frustrating, or 3. it is as enjoyable as watching anime. Case 2 is where we are most tempted to just do something else that seems more like it could change the world (it's always the world that needs to change, right? Not ME. *I* don't need to change, although I am technically part of the world. For example: The bishops need to [xyz]; the pope needs to [abc]; the faithful need to [mnop]. All of these people need to change, and if I don't tell them to, perhaps at the judgment Christ will say to me: "I was wrong on the internet, and you did not post a long explanation of why I was wrong and why, in particular, I do not love Jesus.")
The hardest part of sorting these things out is that +Strickland's grievances are very real, and very justified. **We make the same laments as him about the same things going on in Rome here in Pillar comment sections.** Me included; I've staunchly railed against many scandals and failures here.
But starkly unlike Vigano, +Strickland reiterates again and again his unwavering devotion to communion with the See of Rome and the person of the Pope. What then? This man is clearly exercising a filial devotion of a man who loves his father, and publicly calls him to stop doing wayward things that hurt his children and bring discredit on his family. And considering how easity we've seen it is for clerics to go off the deep end into sede and wacko territory when put through this ringer, the fact that +Strickland is still committed to communion with and love to Pope Francis is remarkable and laudable - he's a far cry from the likes of Altmann and Vigano, who had similar progression stories. A man of lesser sanctity would have jumped ship by now, maybe to hang out with, IDK, a certain Spanish convent?
Sometimes it almost seems like, if you're a cleric, you can't make any comments that could even be misconstrued as disagreeing with Pope Francis on anything of even the smallet matters of personal taste. Strickland is absolutely correct that his brother bishops - even the "good ones" - are far too often pusillanimous yellow-bellies who cannot (and will not) make a strong and unapologetic stand on anything out of fear of the slightest risks.
May God bless +Strickland with continued fidelity to the heirarchal structure of Church unity, and bless his brethren with open ears and renewed backbones.
Cardinal O'Malley has never had any problem telling the Pope what he thinks. But he does so with obvious love and respect, which is more than saying I love and respect you while telling someone off bluntly.
Personally I would like to see more bishops stand up and push back against the agenda from the Vatican. Instead, we see most of the bishops willing and eager to implement everything coming from the Vatican whether it is the closing of TLM parishes or the implementation of the synod. Maybe there are better ways and channels to push back and exercise fraternal correction when our shepherds seem to be going astray than the path that Bishop Strickland chose, but I see little evidence of any attempt by other bishops to preserve and defend the deposit of faith or the treasure of our ancient liturgy and the discipline of liturgical worship. And with respect to the sexual and abuse scandal and the promise of transparency and accountability, it seems we haven't had any real transparency or accountability. There is plenty coming out of Rome that doesn't seem right or good to the faithful from the China policy to the many paths to God comments to the restoration of accused priests to ministry to the confusion over basic moral teachings to the removal and silencing of conservative bishops and to the elevation of heterodox bishops. And all we hear from our own shepherds is crickets. And when they do speak, with a unified voice as against prop 1 in Maryland, no one or very few Catholics listen. It is as if our shepherds have lost all moral authority with the faithful.
They have lost much authority because they shirked it. They have settled for namby-pamby, touchy-feely, nice and comfy Gospel of “good enough” and believe that “nice” is the same as “kindness” and “tolerance” the same as “charity.”
No…“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.” -GKC
Wasn't +Strickland's main criticism that Francis was aiming to change the structure of the Church? If so--that is, if the Church were to become "Synodal"--then, from the point of view of those who accepted the change, it seems, the traditional concept of "schism" would no longer be applicable.
Or, to compare, suppose a Pope were to declare, "Henceforth, the Church is a democracy, and doctrine will be decided by majority vote. The first vote will be to confirm the validity of the process of voting." (Cp. Synod on Synodality) But does this new process of voting have its authority from the declaration, or from the vote? And if someone attacked this new process and said it had no authority, how would that be different from "voting" against it, which was allowed?
I'm concerned that these questions tie into the lack of clarity and transparency in applying canon law mentioned in the article. Is authority in the Church, now, "whatever Francis decides, except when he fails to thwart some initiative or movement he likes?" Then, sometimes it's Francis acting "as Pope" traditionally, with Vatican I authority, and sometimes it's just the flow (a.k.a. sensus fidelium or "the Spirit").
[October 2024]there are currently 233 cardinals in the world, with 121 of them being eligible to vote in a papal conclave as "cardinal electors". there are approximately 5,000 bishops in the world.
So, except for a few Catholic periodicals or websites, Bishop Strickland does not seem to be making much of an impact beyond his closed environment of supporters.
And I would recommend we pray for this man. The Tyler diocese website lists the bishop as the 4th bishop. But it seems that the Bishop is now introducing himself as the Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Tyler.
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.
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.
I see no way that Strickland's words could be construed as “publicly incit[ing] hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical office.” He reiterates again and again his love for the Holy Father and his respect of the office of the Papacy. Is it now a canonical crime to disagree with the Pope's words at an informal meeting with youth in Singapore?
I wonder what actual disobedience he would be provoking. What are some decisions that have been made by Francis that he is recommending people ignore?
As I say, I think he could be accused of it. I'm not actually sure how the trial would come out, if there were one.
Still new to canon law. Wouldn't the charge have to be specific, or does that not matter here?
If Strickland feels he needs to do this, it seems to me he should be VERY specific about what he thinks Francis has done or said that contradicts the faith and support those accusations with evidence. Vague accusations aren't really helpful.
In his letter, linked in the article, he pointed toward the Pope's statements regarding all religions being paths to God.
Absolutely right.
Thank you for this detailed analysis.
Situations like this one put me in mind of The Screwtape Letters. It's so easy for the Evil One to twist our good intentions, to cloud our minds and partially blind us to facts that would disrupt a narrative, and to lead us to march with confident self-righteousness down the wrong path.
May the Good Lord protect Bishop Strickland's heart, and prevent him from committing any mortal sin. And all the rest of us, too.
Is Strickland still a member of the USCCB, like bishop emeriti? Or is he no longer a member since he was removed from office?
Church Law and US Law are two very different systems of justice. The Holy Father is a Jesuit at heart, spiritually speaking. Ignatius.
At the same time he desires a listening Church, transparency yet never answered the Dubia. He's trying to govern with a both and approach. The agreement with China, Jimmy Lai, Cardinal Zhen all done in secret. The Pope seems at war with himself. Rich in mercy and justice None of his statements are From The Chair of
Peter thus far. He has stated the door is closed on female ordination. He said Gender ideology is ‘one of the most dangerous ideological
colonizations’ today. The Death Penalty is a non-negotiable. The Church and Gospel are ours (the laity) to flourish and grow. I don't always appreciate his positions but I pray for him every day. My Rosary
is offered for the Bishops &
priests. Follow Jesus. Stand for Jesus. It's a narrow road.
He did answer the dubia. The dubiabiles cherrypicked the responses to make Pope Francis seem crooked.
Who cherry picked what? The Dubia were answered. The Pope chose not meet with the Cardinals who authored them. No one was making Pope Francis look bad.
The Cardinals sent them in 2016.
https://catholicism.org/the-five-dubia-of-the-four-cardinals.html
They were reported as answered in 2023 by multiple Catholic sources, including the Pillar.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255539/read-pope-francis-response-to-the-dubia-presented-to-him-by-5-cardinals.
A very fair and balanced analysis, JD. Let’s pray for Bishop Strickland, he seems to be headed down a dark and dangerous rabbit hole, sadly.
> For his own part, Strickland said his observation of the papacy had reached a “devastating conclusion” — “the man who occupies the Chair of St. Peter does not love the truth.”
I think as an exercise I will translate "the man who sits on the Chair of St. Peter loves the truth" and "the man, sitting on the Chair of St. Peter, loves the truth" and "the man, loving the truth, sits on the Chair of St. Peter" and then move on to the same in aorist tense (I am still taking Ancient Greek and if I stick it out to the next semester we will get into one of the Gospels which is why I am melting my brain over e.g. Chapter 13 in Athenaze, but I have to remind myself of it pretty often.) The process of learning a language by being dumped headfirst into a bucket of it (or "immersion", or in short, drowning in two inches of water) requires either a real need in natural circumstances (like a little kid learning language in the first place) or a determined trust that although it is constantly frustrating, it is "working as intended" so don't quit now because spending an hour today on it will pay off (even though it feels useless, or like a terrible failure, or both at once) whereas spending an hour getting mad on social media will not pay off (even though it feels great like I'm accomplishing something). Actually, though, I talked to someone today who accidentally learned to understand Japanese by watching a lot of anime(?) with both English and Japanese subtitles on at the same time (he reports that he cannot speak or write it, only understand it, and was interested/surprised to learn experimentally how compartmentalized these abilities are from one another). We pray because 1. we need to in order to obtain something, or 2. we trust that prayer will change us in some way although it only seems to be frustrating, or 3. it is as enjoyable as watching anime. Case 2 is where we are most tempted to just do something else that seems more like it could change the world (it's always the world that needs to change, right? Not ME. *I* don't need to change, although I am technically part of the world. For example: The bishops need to [xyz]; the pope needs to [abc]; the faithful need to [mnop]. All of these people need to change, and if I don't tell them to, perhaps at the judgment Christ will say to me: "I was wrong on the internet, and you did not post a long explanation of why I was wrong and why, in particular, I do not love Jesus.")
The hardest part of sorting these things out is that +Strickland's grievances are very real, and very justified. **We make the same laments as him about the same things going on in Rome here in Pillar comment sections.** Me included; I've staunchly railed against many scandals and failures here.
But starkly unlike Vigano, +Strickland reiterates again and again his unwavering devotion to communion with the See of Rome and the person of the Pope. What then? This man is clearly exercising a filial devotion of a man who loves his father, and publicly calls him to stop doing wayward things that hurt his children and bring discredit on his family. And considering how easity we've seen it is for clerics to go off the deep end into sede and wacko territory when put through this ringer, the fact that +Strickland is still committed to communion with and love to Pope Francis is remarkable and laudable - he's a far cry from the likes of Altmann and Vigano, who had similar progression stories. A man of lesser sanctity would have jumped ship by now, maybe to hang out with, IDK, a certain Spanish convent?
Sometimes it almost seems like, if you're a cleric, you can't make any comments that could even be misconstrued as disagreeing with Pope Francis on anything of even the smallet matters of personal taste. Strickland is absolutely correct that his brother bishops - even the "good ones" - are far too often pusillanimous yellow-bellies who cannot (and will not) make a strong and unapologetic stand on anything out of fear of the slightest risks.
May God bless +Strickland with continued fidelity to the heirarchal structure of Church unity, and bless his brethren with open ears and renewed backbones.
Wow! Well said!
Cardinal O'Malley has never had any problem telling the Pope what he thinks. But he does so with obvious love and respect, which is more than saying I love and respect you while telling someone off bluntly.
Personally I would like to see more bishops stand up and push back against the agenda from the Vatican. Instead, we see most of the bishops willing and eager to implement everything coming from the Vatican whether it is the closing of TLM parishes or the implementation of the synod. Maybe there are better ways and channels to push back and exercise fraternal correction when our shepherds seem to be going astray than the path that Bishop Strickland chose, but I see little evidence of any attempt by other bishops to preserve and defend the deposit of faith or the treasure of our ancient liturgy and the discipline of liturgical worship. And with respect to the sexual and abuse scandal and the promise of transparency and accountability, it seems we haven't had any real transparency or accountability. There is plenty coming out of Rome that doesn't seem right or good to the faithful from the China policy to the many paths to God comments to the restoration of accused priests to ministry to the confusion over basic moral teachings to the removal and silencing of conservative bishops and to the elevation of heterodox bishops. And all we hear from our own shepherds is crickets. And when they do speak, with a unified voice as against prop 1 in Maryland, no one or very few Catholics listen. It is as if our shepherds have lost all moral authority with the faithful.
They have lost much authority because they shirked it. They have settled for namby-pamby, touchy-feely, nice and comfy Gospel of “good enough” and believe that “nice” is the same as “kindness” and “tolerance” the same as “charity.”
No…“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.” -GKC
Wasn't +Strickland's main criticism that Francis was aiming to change the structure of the Church? If so--that is, if the Church were to become "Synodal"--then, from the point of view of those who accepted the change, it seems, the traditional concept of "schism" would no longer be applicable.
Or, to compare, suppose a Pope were to declare, "Henceforth, the Church is a democracy, and doctrine will be decided by majority vote. The first vote will be to confirm the validity of the process of voting." (Cp. Synod on Synodality) But does this new process of voting have its authority from the declaration, or from the vote? And if someone attacked this new process and said it had no authority, how would that be different from "voting" against it, which was allowed?
I'm concerned that these questions tie into the lack of clarity and transparency in applying canon law mentioned in the article. Is authority in the Church, now, "whatever Francis decides, except when he fails to thwart some initiative or movement he likes?" Then, sometimes it's Francis acting "as Pope" traditionally, with Vatican I authority, and sometimes it's just the flow (a.k.a. sensus fidelium or "the Spirit").
Great logical exercise! But does the Chair of Peter have to follow logic?
I hate to be that guy, but it seems Truth and canon law don’t care about each other in this instance.
[October 2024]there are currently 233 cardinals in the world, with 121 of them being eligible to vote in a papal conclave as "cardinal electors". there are approximately 5,000 bishops in the world.
So, except for a few Catholic periodicals or websites, Bishop Strickland does not seem to be making much of an impact beyond his closed environment of supporters.
And I would recommend we pray for this man. The Tyler diocese website lists the bishop as the 4th bishop. But it seems that the Bishop is now introducing himself as the Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Tyler.
bishop emeritus is indeed his canonical status.
Vatican very wise. Giving Strickland enough rope and he will hang himself in the noose of schism he's almost there. Just a matter of time.