There are men elevated to bishop, especially under the prior two pontificates, who should never have been. Their spirituality is only one part of their qualifications. They must also be the spiritual leader of their diocese and demonstrate care and empathy and be good stewards. Narcissists don’t do that.
I don't think labelling someone as a "narcissist" or calling their leadership vaguely "painful" is either charitable or effective at getting your point across.
I think Bp. Strickland has acted imprudently in his social media and in his rhetoric towards the pope. But I think lobbing emotionally charged bombs without any specifics does not contribute to helping others to understand the situation or sympathize with your side of it.
If anything it increases sympathy towards the bishop, especially when a scroll of your substack subscriptions shows a very predictable roster of "everything I disagree with is fascism" types.
If you have a substantial critique of the bishop I'm sure it would be welcome and could contribute to a greater understanding of the situation.
Anon, the issues with Stika have been covered extensively in The Pillar, including an up-to-date interview with a DOK priest a month or so ago. I suggest you read those.
I guess my ultimate question was where does he go...does he continue to serve as a priest in Tyler? Does he get assigned to an island with 5 Catholics? Will he be at the USCCB? I get this is rare but there may be some precedent?
Bp Stika of Knoxville chose to return to his hometown. Because he was allowed to resign, we must support him to some level. It is up to the Abp of St Louis (where he moved) to decide what public ministry Stika can perform. I heard the Abp said “none.”
Unless assigned elsewhere... wherever he wants! He can't govern q diocese, but is otherwise free to do what he wants within reason. For example, Cardinal Sarah spends his time visiting every Marian pilgrimage he can fine being cheered by thousands while writing NYT bestsellers, having a press shop and comms team that rivals most heads of state in small nations.
Francis canned him from the CDW to weaken his influence. The opposite happens
Maybe, since he has now been "pushed to the margins," he can become a voting member at the next Synod on Synodality. Unless, of course, "those" kinds of Catholics are not the kind of "voices" to who the Synod considers worthy of "dialogue and listening."
Wow. From afar this appears to be disturbing news. A Roman vendetta perhaps? Would like an article on general reaction from the faithful of the diocese to try and make more sense of it.
He apparently made a speech on October 31 in which he said things more inflammatory than the things he had said before. Was this because he knew the end was coming and decided to get all his thoughts off his chest, or was it the final straw? Prior to this the issue seemed to have died down, although who knows what may have been going on behind the scenes.
he likely knew the recommendation from the visitation was to seek his resignation, which is why he had already said he "would not go along quietly", thus, better to go out with a bang and not a whimper. still waiting for Papa Frank to curtail the LGTBQIA+ agenda pushing bishops and fellow jesuits, well, okay, not waiting for what will never happen.
They'd requested his resignation over a month before. Since he refused, there was probably a lot going on behind the scenes.
In the context of a discussion on the impact of Pope Francis' ambiguous statements and disturbing personnel choices, Bishop Strickland first re-affirmed his belief that Pope Francis is the legitimate Pope, and then read the entirety of a letter from a member of the faithful. Every inflammatory thing he said was from the letter. There are an awful lot of people who are sufficiently disturbed by what PF says and does that they have great difficulty imagining he's really a Pope. That should be a concern for bishops, and they should listen to these people so that they can have a half a chance of helping them, rather than just writing them off as disloyal schismatics and saying "good riddance".
I wouldn't assume the speech to be directly related to his removal in any way.
Wow!! The majority of comments are so disappointing! Pure speculation is disrespectful to our Church and our Pope.
Did you read this article? A myriad of reasons led to this outcome some of which will never be made public.
So are you saying Orthodox Bishops do not make mistakes?
Culture wars are the reason our Church has so many current issues. Are you saying The Holy Spirit was not involved in the last conclave?
The utilization of the word Vendetta whenever you don't like the outcome?
If I was a Manager who made unsatisfactory comments about my boss, and was a poor steward/manager of finances and resources, poked my nose in other departments defending employees not under my control, not a team player, and after documentation was presented to me showing my deficiencies, I refused to resign. Would I still have a job?
Can you tell us what the bishop did that was so terrible? Did he deny papal supremacy, deny that marriage is between one man and one women or teach that Christ was not divine?
No.
He disagreed with the pope.
Is that not allowed?
This pope of mercy, accompaniment and acceptance of everyone and everything has demonstrated none of these attributes.
I can name 5 dioceses with lots of employee turnover, badly thought out projects and hiring people that were dismissed from previous jobs.
This is a vendetta as were the removals of the two other bishops mentioned in the article.
This is one angry pope and we have seen how he responds from refusing to allow people to kiss his ring to his tirades about “clericalism.”
Yes, the papacy, although formally an elected, absolute monarchy, is also a dictatorship. The Supreme Legislator is also the Supreme Executive and the Supreme Judge.
This is a pretty good working definition of dictatorship.
Sorry that the comments disappoint you, P, but it is understandable that people are upset about this step. All the reasons you mention rely on the metaphor of a business corporation, but this is an imperfect metaphor at best for the hierarchy of the Church. A diocesan bishop is hardly a manager, but is a successor of the apostles. Of course there may be good reasons why this step was taken, but these are hardly obvious. Especially given the public actions and statements of some other bishops, who get away with all manner of unacceptable things. The timing around the treatment of Fr. Rupnik, which proceeded in quite a different way, is also most unfortunate. The most charitable way to read the situation is that whatever Bp. Strickland did, it was bad enough to merit significantly more prompt attention than serial rape and abuse.
Many of the faithful would like to see some reasons for this removal. Vague allegations of mismanagement may be true but are way to opaque to be satisfactory. The statement by Cardinal DiNardo seems quite insufficient.
The Vatican slow-walked McCarrick's discipline for years as well. What could possibly be both worse than sexually abusing children so as to require immediate action rather than canonical due process, and NOT merit defrocking?
Not only did Francis slow walk Uncle Ted’s discipline, in the early stages of his pontificate he actively rehabilitated Ted and reportedly relied on his advice in giving Cupich and Tobin their new assignments and subsequent red hats
This particular poor steward/manager of finances and resources had a surplus for the year, and 21 seminarians. Diocese of Harrisburg has 11, and a lot of dioceses are going bankrupt.
Bishops are not strictly responsible for their own job and barred from commenting on anything else. They have responsibilities to the whole Church, which is why St. Paul could rebuke St. Peter in the diocese of Antioch. Bishops also have responsibilities to rebuke the Pope if he's leading Catholics astray.
You've got a great list of supposed problems that might result in termination, but no evidence whatsoever that any of them are true, or are even the reasons that were actually given by the Vatican. Because the Vatican doesn't do transparency, lest anyone discover any unjust, corrupt, or incompetent actions.
The Holy Spirit is as involved in discernment as each individual bishop allows Him to be. God's Providence and permissive will encompasses such horrors as World Wars, murder, torture, mutilation, persecution, heresy, schism... If you want things to work out well for you, you have to listen and obey the Spirit, not merely declare that you're doing something really important so whatever you decide must be God's will. Cardinals in conclaves are not a magical exception to that rule. And really, even if they all did discern exactly as the Holy Spirit wished, being elected to the Papacy hardly makes a person incapable of doing evil things. Are you that bad at Church history? Strickland would hardly be the first unjustly removed bishop.
RE: Church History - As many saints can testify, although protected from error in matters of faith and morals, popes can still be incompetent, petty, stupid, vindictive, and blinkered in many ways, like any other human being. It is much easier to read historical accounts of bad popes than to live thru the reign of one. But persevere we must: "“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."
What did Bishop Strickland do that was contrary to the Catholic Faith and Catholic Morals? Did he sexually abuse children? Did he support clergy that sexually abused children, parishioners or employees? Did he bless same-sex marriages? Did he encourage gender affirming care?
I have not seen a petition to remove him from his diocese parishioners similar to the petition circulated to remove Bishop Stika. Stika was terrible at his job and was taken over by evil behavior.
No, it couldn't because he wasn't. This is not more than a power play. The Holy Father is like a mafioso, arbitrarily whacking a subordinate for talking out of turn. One recalls Tommy DeSimone taking out Spider Gianco, as so memorably portrayed by Joe Pesci in Goodfellas.
Maybe you live in a diocese with a proper bishop? These guys don’t get fired easily. In this case and in Stika’s case, two other bishops are assigned to investigate. If you haven’t lived in a diocese with an out-of-control bishop, you aren’t free to criticize. It’s extremely damaging.
good, I am glad that Francis has taken this step, though it will undoubtedly cause outrage and other difficulties. whether you think this is a good thing or not, though, now would be a good time to pray for Bishop Strickland and the faithful of the Diocese of Tyler.
I think it is a good thing that Strickland no longer has the care of souls entrusted to him, because I think he isn't fit for that office. right now, I think he needs to engage in some soul-searching as to whether it really was merely his self-described "standing up for the truth" that brought matters to this point.
But the worst case scenario I think is a breakaway German Church that dies off in a generation, leaving a small but vibrant traditionalist German Church behind to rebuild from.
I mean it's not like the German Church has never broken away before ...
Any liberal churches that break off in the West will effectively die out within 30 years and leave behind growing traditionalist movements.
I know it's hard to live through, but my general sense is increasingly that the Sexual Revolution both inside the Church and in the larger society is a problem that will solve itself with birthrates.
The PAIN? Please elaborate. Really…we need to know what he did from a member of his flock.
As you put Stika and Strickland in the same sentence, remember, Strickland’s sin is he stood up for the faith by standing against some of Francis’ public statements. Stika was in a public relationship with a seminarian USING DIOCESAN FUNDS. It still took a few years to get him to retire…and…he has no faculties from the Bishop in his diocese of residence.
The loss of 10 priests, lawsuits for mismanaging sexual abuse, people who have left the church and/or lost faith in the church, priests under medical care for what they endured, financial overreach, the extent of which is currently being investigated, using private detectives to follow people, permitting bullying and engaging in it himself…is that enough?
Thanks you for being specific. Let’s start with financial mismanagement ‘under investigation’. Don’t they usually wait for the investigation to be complete? The loss of faith among Catholics and mismanagement of sexual abuse cases, if proven true canonically, is hardly unique to Tyler nor grounds for removal.
The loss of 10 priests and those under medical care due to ‘what they endured’ is certainly worthy of attention. I would ask if you know if these priests were under duress because of disagreement with Strickland’s orthodoxy, or for other reasons? One man’s bullying is another’s quest for obedience (see Cardinal Cupich).
Can you elaborate on the issues that Strickland thought private detectives were needed? The use of PIs, while unfortunate, is sometimes necessary these days.
I appreciate the opportunity to learn from someone with firsthand knowledge, as I have only attended Mass in Tyler a few times while passing through.
I actually agree with you. My point was precious few have been relieved for it. What makes Strickland’s case so pressing that they didn’t even follow Francis’ own Vos Estes Lex Mundi? If I remember correctly, Bishop Strickland was against both it and the Dallas Charter because he KNEW that approach wouldn’t solve or even address the problem in the Catholic hierarchy.
Pointing out a double standard is not "Whataboutism." It's perfectly legitimate to ask why Francis is so quick to discipline this particular disobedient bishop while not doing more to discipline the also brazenly disobedient German Bishops, who are threatening to do far more harm by going down a path that if allowed to continue will both utterly destroy their own local Church and force a global schism much like that of the Anglicans.
Calling things "Whataboutism" is, like the accusation of "Both Sideism", just one of those left wing, "Resistance Politics" cliches that have become both empty of content and tiresome.
And you keep saying we "can't imagine the pain" but you never give us the opportunity to "imagine the pain" by sharing how the bishop created a "painful" situation for you.
Bad leaders, whether secular or ecclesiastical, are a normal part of human life. Except in extraordinary circumstances (like the abuse scandals in places like Boston or Ireland, or catastrophically broken societies like Hamas-ruled Gaza or Communist Dictatorships) people just generally live through bad leaders and their day to day lives go on as normal.
Having a bishop like Strickland (or a president like Trump) is definitely annoying. But painful? I don't know about that.
I just don't think it is healthy to put that much emotion into your leaders. A good bishop or president or governor or pastor or whatever is an incredible blessing.
probably not. I don't think that dissent and disagreement are always wrong, but there are ways of doing it which are unacceptable. when a bishop reads a letter that calls Francis a usurper, accuses him of having a program of undermining the faith, these are slanders and not mere criticisms. German bishops who disagree with Francis are at least respectful in doing so, they do not drum up opposition against him.
I don't think the ideas said German bishops are "pushing for" are actually "deadly heretical". I think I have probably made that clear before. also, I'm not actually sure that Francis has exactly ordered them to stop, so much as provided various correctives. so yes, I do think the actions and statements of Strickland are much worse.
According to someone who was present when the letter was read, the context was hearing from members of the faithful regarding the damage Pope Francis' behavior has caused, not declaring opinions regarding the validity of his election. Besides which, he preceded the letter with a reaffirmation of his belief that Pope Francis is in fact the Pope.
Cardinal Muller recently stated that many of Pope Francis' statements are most easily interpreted as material heresy. That naturally causes confusion that can easily undermine the faith. Repeated direct requests for clarification have been met with more ambiguous statements, also easily interpreted as material heresy. Is your conclusion that the Pope is too stupid to avoid undermining the faith, and therefore can't be considered to have a program?
Which is more important, respectful deference to your clerical superiors, or not teaching heresy like the German bishops? Answer carefully, Pope Francis doesn't approve of clericalism.
I don't think Strickland is a sedevacantist himself. that said, his continued association with and approval of other sedevacantists (or those flirting with sedevacantism) was a problem. even if he had not read the letter, there would already have been sufficient reason for him to be removed.
to your other comments, I simply don't believe that Francis (or the bishops of Germany, for that matter) is teaching "material heresy". he may be undermining the beliefs of certain traditionalists, but that is because their beliefs are wrong and/or evil. I think Francis' theology is correct (and also not really ambiguous, as claimed) and that his critics are wrong.
Is a bishop associating with ANY sinner a problem? Or is it only sedevacantist leanings that is a sin to merit total avoidance? Can you explain why this sin is so much worse that even bishops must take care lest such a person touch them? Or even a person who is tempted by the sin? Who is supposed to convert and strengthen them, if a bishop associating with them is reason for removal from his bishopric? How is he supposed to image Christ if he cannot be the friend of sinners without sinning and incurring just punishment?
Is it not permissible to approve of the good actions of people who have a wrong belief?
Take a moment to pretend that the Pope and a bunch of bishops ARE teaching material heresy/ambiguating the Faith and undermining it (it has happened in the past). Would it still be wrong for a bishop to say so?
I don't have a problem with pastoring sedevacantists. they should be accompanied, like anyone else. but Strickland wasn't simply having a pastoral relationship with them, he was promoting their views, views which objectively rupture the unity of the Church. he gave legitimacy to their craziness as they gave him a platform and many undeserved accolades.
if Francis was teaching something contrary to the Christian faith, then yes, it would absolutely be right to correct him.
Obviously would like to know the reasons. Already people are both applauding and bemoaning this action but I’m unable to do either without the facts. But regardless, this just inflames those who already feel Pope Francis is “against” more traditional Catholics. It feels like we can’t get even a moment of peace.
He did provide reasoning, but smells like the reasoning is just a cover for the real reason. Let's get real, if Strickland was all about progressive thinking, he would not have been touched. Pope even would of promoted him.
I personally know many Catholics in Tyler, both priests and laity, who love Bishop Strickland.
I'll grant that it's possible that your accusation may be true, but it never was substantiated over and over again as it was with Bishop Stika. I would be careful.
So the reasons have been given. Some will see it as a personal vendetta no matter what Rome says. Pretty tough to have a reasonable discussion when there is a lack of trust on both sides.
Respectfully, Father, what reasoning are you referring to? Cardinal DiNardo's statement is three short paragraphs, none of which refer to any specific reasons as to why he was removed.
Actually, the Cardinal refers to a week-long apostolic visitation conducted by two bishops that consisted of “an exhaustive inquiry into all aspects of the governance and leadership of the Diocese of Tyler.” From info previously reported, I believe by the Pillar, that is a very extensive process, involving personal interviews with many people, including clergy and laity. The conclusion from that visitation is that it is no longer feasible for Bishop Strickland to continue to lead the Diocese. The only way to be clearer as to the reasons would be to publish the visitation report or some summary of it, which I suppose is possible but which could also be interpreted as unreasonably harsh against the Bishop. Maybe that's in play here.
The Pillar's source (a Dicastery official) went into a little more detail, as I mentioned in an earlier comment.
It's hard for me not to see this as an instance of "show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
I'm sure every diocese has some mismanagement, bishops certainly aren't perfect administrators. Yet it's the outspoken traditionalists whose administrative skills are so poor that they get removed.
Yes, I would agree that every diocese has some mismanagement. But that doesn't mean that when there is a severe case, that Rome should not act to change leadership.
Bishop Martino "retired" from the Diocese of Scranton in 2009 under Pope Benedict. I think it's safe to say that Pope Benedict was not removing bishops because they were "outspoken traditionalists." I also don't believe that Bishop Spika was an "outspoken traditionalist." Sometimes a change is necessary regardless of ideology.
Actually I'm not just talking process. But we are only privy to the process in this case. I have been involved in a canonical process and I can tell you, sadly, that some bishops...both "conservative" and "liberal" use their virtually absolute power to do great harm. I have personally been affected by that. This is a great problem in the Church hierarchy that, fortunately perhaps, many people are not aware of, because you would be scandalized by it. Your comment presumes that there is no substance behind the action of removal, which is dismissive of any person who has experienced harm because of the bishop's actions. As a person who knows how that happens and the years and years of pain it causes, I am personally very sensitive to that. I ask that you consider that there are likely people who have suffered and not discount their experience.
How are you talking more than just process, if we are only privy to the process?
We've been scandalized by enough of what we know of the Church hierarchy not to trust their decisions. Particularly when they give no reasons and skip over canonical processes for removal.
Because the process in this case involved a week of investigation done by two brother bishops involving personal interviews. And there have been reasons given, both formally and informally, as I’ve previously cited.
Giving more details on the length of the process and who did it is still just process.
General conclusions that a person should be removed are not reasons for removal.
Listing the questions the original visitation was meant to investigate are not reasons for removal... or they could have removed him without the visitation.
I've read a fair number of audit reports in non-ecclesiastical settings, and this information would be rejected even as a short summary of the conclusions. With a fair amount of astonished ridicule behind the scenes.
To give you an idea, an abstracted format might be: contrary to obligation X, Y was done, resulting in Z. Even in a summary you can't say "things weren't as good as they should have been for the things the audit looked at, so fire the VP." and call it a reason.
Are there reasons given that I haven't been able to find?
“ And there have been reasons given, both formally and informally, as I’ve previously cited.”
Excuse me for being slow and stupid, but what are they? One will have to do better than “administrative problems,” as I imagine most teenagers would charge their parents with that. Thank you.
I don't doubt your experience, FrTim, and I would never presume to make light of it. Nor do I "presume" that there is no substance here -- I just want evidence of it. Unfortunately, like many faithful Catholics scandalized by Francis and his protectees and cronies (Zanchetta, Rupnik, Tobin, Farrell, McElroy, Gregory, to name just a few), I have lost all trust in him, as he speaks out of both sides of his mouth and acts imperiously. My trust is instead in the Holy Spirit. It is He who allowed Francis to become pope. And it is He who I believe will ensure that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church -- despite Francis's relentless attempts to make it over in his own image and likeness. I continue to pray for him.
These situations are indeed a reminder that we must trust in the Holy Spirit. For all history His will is done in spite of us, praise God! We are on the same page there for sure! And I’d appreciate your prayers too!
It pains me to say this FrTim, but based on the track record of the Vatican in recent years, I have little faith that the apostolic visitation of Strickland was anything other than a Soviet style show trial with a pre ordained outcome dictated from above. Remember these are the same folks that said that TC was issued as a result of a “survey” which indicated the various Latin Mass communities were nefariously working to undermine Vatican II
I don't know anything about the Diocese of Tyler: not my fight, not my problem. But, man oh man do I long for a new Bishop of Rome. I am so sick of the fighting and ill will the current one has thrown up for no decent reason.
It seems to me that I was taught that charity begins at home. I don't know what is going on but I suppose one can say that Bishop Strickland was guilty of betraying this. Likewise, Pope Francis is also guilty. I interpret that the Holy Father's attitude towards a big block of US Catholics to be equally if not greater in lack of charity. With this example at the top how can we do different? Listen to what they say when they teach the Gospel but don't follow their example I suppose. That is as charitable as I can be at the moment. I am trying to keep from discouragement. Pray for the Holy Father, pray for Bishop Strickland . Pray for the faithful that we stay focused on the Lord.
> I interpret that the Holy Father's attitude towards a big block of US Catholics to be equally if not greater in lack of charity.
Following St. Philip Neri's four things necessary for humility ("spernere mundum, spernere nullum, spernere se ipsum, spernere se sperni") we ought to more-or-less ignore being despised; we ought not to be attached to it either in a positive sense (liking to be disliked by someone: you see, he hates us, therefore we are the good guys) *or* in a negative sense (being saddened and upset that we are not loved as we expected to be loved), we ought to pay no attention to it and just go on with the work of allowing God to make us into saints.
I suppose you are right, but it is hard to witness the Holy Father's disregard. We are talking about a family member. He is afterall the Holy Father of the catholic faithful. It isn't a good evangelization tool for the Catholic faith anyway. St Philip Neri was a better man than I because it does make me a little sad. It doesn't stop me, but it makes me sad.
Hey all, just a reminder as we discuss this difficult subject, of The Pillar’s comment policy: Christian charity.
It is our believe that Pillar readers - Christians of exceptional judgment and discernment - can demonstrate how to discuss serious and contentious issues while excelling in charity toward their interlocutors, and the issues they discuss.
The uneven discipline during this pontificate is something that hurts me deeply. I am going to spend some time with my family and pray instead of comment further.
JD the Pope is spiritually abusive toward American conservative Catholics, he constantly castigates us and makes no secret of his contempt for us. Yes let us be as charitable as we can, but the only appropriate reaction to an abuser is to resist and to name the abuse for what it is
Castigates and speaks with contempt (your examples of abusive behavior) sound more like "verbally abusive" to me. I am not sure how I would leap from those directly to "spiritually abusive" (since I guess I have mostly seen that phrase in connection with a rotten spiritual director, or within a religious community, etc.)
In the case of verbal abuse, yes, it could be useful to remind the victims "this was not an appropriate thing for that person to say; it was a verbally abusive thing, which you did not deserve" (or, depending on the thing that was said, "which no one ever deserves", e.g. if he called conservative Catholics "fat and ugly" there is no circumstance in which that would be appropriate.) It could also be useful to remind the victims of their options: they can go no-contact, which (since the relationship with the Pope is strictly one-way and no one ever has to worry about "what if we are both invited to the same party" in this life... there will eventually be an important wedding to which we are all invited, of course) would simply mean not reading any news coverage about what he has said; or they can go low-contact which means (in a one-way relationship with a celebrity) being very selective about what news coverage to consume and confining it to very special occasions. Or they can continue to have a one-way abusive relationship with a celebrity who never encounters them in person, by obsessively reading news about the celebrity even though they know they won't like reading it (like secretly following an ex-boyfriend on social media in order to feel bad, letting him live rent-free in one's head), which is a strange choice but a common one in this modern era. It is a lot easier to stop reading news about the Pope than to deal with co-parenting with a face-to-face chronic verbal abuser.
I hope he is sent to a rural community of medically trained religious sisters who will slice and dice him in holy prayer and work of six months. Make him chop wood too, Sisters.
Him too. In fact, it would not hurt all the bishops for them to go on a spiritual Club Med retreat with disciplined Marine like religious sisters who will only bring out the best in them by way of fasting, acts of Corporal works of mercy, counseling, hours in prayer each day, cutting the grass, biking on dirt roads, and so much more. I did it and survived. They would as well. https://creyna.substack.com/?utm_source=navbar&utm_medium=web&r=fo3ax
I think it is possible to sympathize with Strickland's frustration with the pope while also recognizing that Strickland's behavior is neither appropriate or holy for a bishop, and therefore undermines his cause.
Holiness is indispensable to someone who seeks to defend the truth of the faith. When defending the faith against what one believes the errors of a *superior* I think a Catholic needs to take extra care not just to maintain charity, but obedience as well, as obedience to legitimate demands by legitimate church authority, even when painful or difficult, is a mark of spiritual authenticity.
I'm not saying that a good Catholic can never disagree with a Pope or bishop or pastor, but just that one should do so carefully and in a spirit of docility.
St Joan of Arc, St (Padre) Pio, St. John of the Cross, Abp Fulton Sheen, Blessed Franz Jaegerstaetter (with the Bishop of Linz at the time - although not religious, his bishop did not have his back!), not to mention St Thomas More and Bp Fisher, deserted by their companions... .
With the velvet steamroller of synodality sowing confusion and dubia responses muddying the doctrinal waters even more, I welcome someone like Strickland providing a public counter to the Roman nonsense. I recall Jesus cleansing the temple in a direct, righteously angry way that was shocking to the senses no doubt, but reinforced a strong message.
Jesus is divine, and his divinity gave him the authority and perfect wisdom to act during his 33 years as a man in human society in ways we cannot.
I'm not saying that we should never criticize church authorities - far from it - but being able to effectively challenge superiors within the church depends very much on being able to do so in a way that is *holy* and it requires a high degree of prudence.
Having read the Pillar's previous report on this situation, my impression is that Strickland has at the very least walked right up to the boundary, if not crossed it.
Pope Francis is not my favorite at all.
The synod makes me uneasy and I think the dubia responses could be more clear and less... jesuitical. But I think the synod has shown some positive signs of turning away from the more controversial issues and there was nothing heretical in the dubia responses, which affirm Church teaching while making space for pastoral discretion that does not challenge those teachings. (No, Francis never said gay *couples* could be blessed; of course a trans person who has had surgery but is struggling could be baptized and brought to repentance, etc.)
Francis has done a lot that should be criticized. I don't think he will be remembered as a great pope. But he's not the evil heretical antipope, either.
As someone very much on Team "Francis's Critics" I think those criticisms will be more effective for the good of the Church if they come from a place of deep and obvious humility and are done in a way that is more respectful of the office he holds.
You make good points but look at the situation we are in now. Nuanced dubia answers one day, next day MSM headlines screaming “pope says trans can be baptized and godparents”. Also “Church approves blessings of same sex couples “. Given the gravity of the doctrine involved, you would think Rome would put out explicit explanations and instructions, for how exactly to explain things to the faithful. Yet none of that happens, confusion, reigns supreme, and you can’t help but think that this is all part of a larger plan by Francis and his like minded cohort. No, it is time for faithful shepherds to stand up against this, and publicly so.
I get what you are saying and find it frustrating as well.
But I think faithful bishops would do more good if they used their voices to, say, counter inaccurate media messaging and clarifying what the dubias actually say rather than attacking the pope on social media.
I read the dubia answers and I personally thought their meaning was pretty obvious and didn't see anything unorthodox, even if the wording was vague. I thought the media messaging was wildly and deliberately inaccurate. I think the faithful bishops who are frustrated with the media spin would be way more effective if, rather than attack the pope and foster a "rogue conservatives vs Francis" narrative, they instead forcefully countered the media narratives, clarified the meaning of the dubia answers, and highlight the openly orthodox positions Francis has taken on both transgenderism and gay marriage.
By focusing on defending Church teaching, highlighting the pope's orthodox statements, and countering media spin, the bishops could accomplish a lot more defense of orthodoxy without compromising the visible unity of the Church, even if privately Francis makes them seethe.
Attacking the pope on social media just plays right into the Commonweal and America Mag crowd and their narrative of "rogue conservatives against the pope."
I know it's frustrating. But without compromising my anonymity I'll just say I worked for church institutions for 20 years, across the entire ideological spectrum. You have to maintain your integrity but you also have to play the game *smart.*
Strickland didn't play the game smart.
And when you don't play smart the only side you hurt is your own.
When the answers are not simple yes/no, or as short as possible, then they are open to spin. You are basically stating that the bishops need to spin the Pope’s responses. The better solution is for the Pope/DDF to be direct as possible and not have statements with many interpretations.
Many people are coming to the conclusion that this is never going to happen. Even worse is that it is done on purpose to be vague so that everyone can have their own interpretation.
I agree with you, and I always refer to this article by Dr Jeff Mirus when things happen- I think "bishop" can apply to any church authority figure....
Perhaps you could rephrase: <The Pope has frequently said things that are most easily interpreted as material heresy, which is gravely harmful to the Faithful and undermines the deposit of the faith> (my paraphrase) in a way that continues to disagree with the Pope to the same extent, but does so carefully and in a spirit of docility?
I've heard a lot of complaints about tone and tact both in and out of the Church. Nobody ever offers a rephrase with the complaints.
Apparently, Strickland chose the wrong "crime" to commit: questioning Francis' agenda. If he had merely possessed child pornography or raped a kid/woman religious but been loyal to Francis, the pope would have considered giving him oversight of Vatican finances or made him director of the papal residence (e.g., Zanchetta and Ricca) or defaming his victims (e.g., Grassi). Compare the timeline of Rupnik's excommunication being lifted with the timeline of Strickland being removed, and you know everything you can get a fairly good idea of where Pope Francis' priorities lie.
-- For my friends everything, for everyone else, the law (arbitrarily and questionably applied).
Rupnick was active as an SJ just in 2022, yet the Pope and his superiors apparently knew about his past. (The pope is also a Jesuit). He met with him last year personally. How is that possible given what both the Jesuits and the Vatican knew about his crimes from many years prior? He has been a sexual assaulter for years and years.
Look for Strickland to upset many of the current ultramontanist modernists by showing up in their dioceses to lead TLM, Pro-life, anti-pedophile etc. prayer rallies/marches.
Getting rid of Bishop Strickland is just a small part of Francis' program. Remember that Francis declared almost ten years ago he wanted to "Make a Mess!" in the Church. [Translation: Destroy the Church and then rebuild it to accomplish long term goals of the Church's enemies.]
Analyze how the sacking of the good Bishop Strickland fits well with Francis' plan. Other Bishops are warned to not oppose Francis' heresies (or apostasy) or they also will be removed.
While they might want to openly support Bishop Strickland, they know this will lead to a clear division which they believe will weaken the Church. Good Bishops mistakenly believe they can avoid a schism, even when it is inevitable and actually desired by Francis. How best for him to "Make a Mess!" in the Church and remove faithful orthodox Catholics.
The Catholic Bishops emphasis on a false Unity of divergent beliefs thus leads to the renunciation of orthodoxy, the absolutely critical element of Unity.
Good Bishops also are trained to preserve the wrong thing, MONEY! Yet they see that 90% of Catholics now attending Sunday Mass are OLD, over 40-45 years of age. In 20 years, Sunday Mass attendance (and contributions) will sink to abysmally low levels. Bishops' policies can delay addressing this development until it actually arrives, but it would be better for them to clarify this matter now with faithful Catholics. Any possible solutions must be spiritual, not financial.
Will the Church survive? Of course. But the vine of the Church now is being severely trimmed back to a small stump (I used to trim grapes, and old grapes sometimes need this!). Only militant orthodox Catholics will remain, a small confirmed remnant to regrow the Church. Will they need large churches and employees? Nope!
Active persecution likely will come too, hastening the loss, but will inevitably strengthen the faith of new soldiers for Christ.
Yet the old vine of Catholic Christianity eventually will produce many crops of new grapes after severe pruning.
Have there been other recent cases of bishops being removed for reasons similar to the Vatican reasons provided(mild general administrative incompetence)? I find it hard to believe that of all the administrative incompetence of all the bishops in the US and abroad, it just so happens to be the case that Bishop Strickland was so uniquely incompetent that he had to be removed from post, rather than trained for greater administrative competence.
A diocese only gets a Vos estis if tons of priests and laity complain and their complaints are found to be warranted. That’s what happened here. Mild administrative incompetence, no; a widespread climate of distrust and abuse, like a bad work situation, is what leads to Vos estis.
I think some of us are a bit suspicious and believe Vos Estis was used as the vehicle for legal expediency to satisfy a seemingly personal vendetta. The asymmetry of the application of canon law speaks to the will of it's enforcer.
This was the outcome of a process, though, not a quick decision. Vos estis isn’t for people the Pope disagrees with, it’s to give relief to clergy and laity suffering under a bad bishop. He remains a bishop, just not of those people. Now, he’ll have even more time to heckle Pope Francis.
Yeah. I’m a flaming liberal Catholic mother of seven. You people can have Trump and your sickeningly rich lifestyle—go ahead, laugh while the world burns. As for me, I will live for Jesus Christ and obey the Pope.
“You people”, “sickeningly rich lifestyle”...this is obviously about more than Bishop Strickland. Sorry to have troubled your day. Know you are in my prayers.
I accept your apology. It is about more than Bishop Strickland, it is about no longer feeling welcome in many church groups because I’m not a Republican—after not feeling welcome most places because we have “so many kids.”
I also want to apologize to you for the violence of my words yesterday. I am sorry for lashing out at you in particular. Pray for me, and let us all pray for unity in the church here in the United States.
Bishop Strickland was the subject of an apostolic visitation, not a vos estis investigation, which involves sexual abuse or the coverup of sexual abuse.
I think you’re right about this! I admit that the distinction is lost on me … is there an explainer on Vos estis vs. apostolic visitation? All I know is that Vos estis is the new way to visitate a diocese with serious bishop concerns. It was my understanding that Vos estis concerned not just sexual abuse by a bishop, but also abuse of authority—in which case the extraordinary apostolic visitation vs. Vos estis becomes even less clear. Is that not the case?
There are men elevated to bishop, especially under the prior two pontificates, who should never have been. Their spirituality is only one part of their qualifications. They must also be the spiritual leader of their diocese and demonstrate care and empathy and be good stewards. Narcissists don’t do that.
Have you actually met Bishop Strickland? He is a lot of things, but a narcissist, spendthrift, or a cold, hard bleary-eyed administrator he ain’t.
I don't think labelling someone as a "narcissist" or calling their leadership vaguely "painful" is either charitable or effective at getting your point across.
I think Bp. Strickland has acted imprudently in his social media and in his rhetoric towards the pope. But I think lobbing emotionally charged bombs without any specifics does not contribute to helping others to understand the situation or sympathize with your side of it.
If anything it increases sympathy towards the bishop, especially when a scroll of your substack subscriptions shows a very predictable roster of "everything I disagree with is fascism" types.
If you have a substantial critique of the bishop I'm sure it would be welcome and could contribute to a greater understanding of the situation.
Anon, the issues with Stika have been covered extensively in The Pillar, including an up-to-date interview with a DOK priest a month or so ago. I suggest you read those.
I read those.
I don't disagree that the Bishop is pushing the envelope big time on appropriate behavior.
Bishop Stika and Bishop Strickland aren't the same person.
Of course I know that. I worked for Bp Stika.
> especially when a scroll of your substack subscriptions shows a very predictable roster of "everything I disagree with is fascism" types.
Is this not ad hominem? (which is a logical fallacy.)
Does Bp. Strickland remain a bishop? How does this work now?
Yes he is a bishop. He just doesn't have juridical authority over a diocese
I guess my ultimate question was where does he go...does he continue to serve as a priest in Tyler? Does he get assigned to an island with 5 Catholics? Will he be at the USCCB? I get this is rare but there may be some precedent?
Bp Stika of Knoxville chose to return to his hometown. Because he was allowed to resign, we must support him to some level. It is up to the Abp of St Louis (where he moved) to decide what public ministry Stika can perform. I heard the Abp said “none.”
"None" sounds about right.
> I heard the Abp said “none.”
Thank God the Abp of St Louis is smarter than the diocese that took in the guy whose mosaics we keep talking about.
If only Stika had any talent.
Unless assigned elsewhere... wherever he wants! He can't govern q diocese, but is otherwise free to do what he wants within reason. For example, Cardinal Sarah spends his time visiting every Marian pilgrimage he can fine being cheered by thousands while writing NYT bestsellers, having a press shop and comms team that rivals most heads of state in small nations.
Francis canned him from the CDW to weaken his influence. The opposite happens
He will likely remain in the Diocese of Tyler since he has lived there for most of his life.
Maybe, since he has now been "pushed to the margins," he can become a voting member at the next Synod on Synodality. Unless, of course, "those" kinds of Catholics are not the kind of "voices" to who the Synod considers worthy of "dialogue and listening."
Yes
Yes, however he is now a “bishop without a country”.
Can he attend the Fall bishops meeting this week? I sure hope he does.
Wow. From afar this appears to be disturbing news. A Roman vendetta perhaps? Would like an article on general reaction from the faithful of the diocese to try and make more sense of it.
He apparently made a speech on October 31 in which he said things more inflammatory than the things he had said before. Was this because he knew the end was coming and decided to get all his thoughts off his chest, or was it the final straw? Prior to this the issue seemed to have died down, although who knows what may have been going on behind the scenes.
he likely knew the recommendation from the visitation was to seek his resignation, which is why he had already said he "would not go along quietly", thus, better to go out with a bang and not a whimper. still waiting for Papa Frank to curtail the LGTBQIA+ agenda pushing bishops and fellow jesuits, well, okay, not waiting for what will never happen.
They'd requested his resignation over a month before. Since he refused, there was probably a lot going on behind the scenes.
In the context of a discussion on the impact of Pope Francis' ambiguous statements and disturbing personnel choices, Bishop Strickland first re-affirmed his belief that Pope Francis is the legitimate Pope, and then read the entirety of a letter from a member of the faithful. Every inflammatory thing he said was from the letter. There are an awful lot of people who are sufficiently disturbed by what PF says and does that they have great difficulty imagining he's really a Pope. That should be a concern for bishops, and they should listen to these people so that they can have a half a chance of helping them, rather than just writing them off as disloyal schismatics and saying "good riddance".
I wouldn't assume the speech to be directly related to his removal in any way.
Wow!! The majority of comments are so disappointing! Pure speculation is disrespectful to our Church and our Pope.
Did you read this article? A myriad of reasons led to this outcome some of which will never be made public.
So are you saying Orthodox Bishops do not make mistakes?
Culture wars are the reason our Church has so many current issues. Are you saying The Holy Spirit was not involved in the last conclave?
The utilization of the word Vendetta whenever you don't like the outcome?
If I was a Manager who made unsatisfactory comments about my boss, and was a poor steward/manager of finances and resources, poked my nose in other departments defending employees not under my control, not a team player, and after documentation was presented to me showing my deficiencies, I refused to resign. Would I still have a job?
Would you?
Can you tell us what the bishop did that was so terrible? Did he deny papal supremacy, deny that marriage is between one man and one women or teach that Christ was not divine?
No.
He disagreed with the pope.
Is that not allowed?
This pope of mercy, accompaniment and acceptance of everyone and everything has demonstrated none of these attributes.
I can name 5 dioceses with lots of employee turnover, badly thought out projects and hiring people that were dismissed from previous jobs.
This is a vendetta as were the removals of the two other bishops mentioned in the article.
This is one angry pope and we have seen how he responds from refusing to allow people to kiss his ring to his tirades about “clericalism.”
If this isn’t clericalism, what is?
Is the papacy dictatorship?
Yes, the papacy, although formally an elected, absolute monarchy, is also a dictatorship. The Supreme Legislator is also the Supreme Executive and the Supreme Judge.
This is a pretty good working definition of dictatorship.
Sorry that the comments disappoint you, P, but it is understandable that people are upset about this step. All the reasons you mention rely on the metaphor of a business corporation, but this is an imperfect metaphor at best for the hierarchy of the Church. A diocesan bishop is hardly a manager, but is a successor of the apostles. Of course there may be good reasons why this step was taken, but these are hardly obvious. Especially given the public actions and statements of some other bishops, who get away with all manner of unacceptable things. The timing around the treatment of Fr. Rupnik, which proceeded in quite a different way, is also most unfortunate. The most charitable way to read the situation is that whatever Bp. Strickland did, it was bad enough to merit significantly more prompt attention than serial rape and abuse.
Many of the faithful would like to see some reasons for this removal. Vague allegations of mismanagement may be true but are way to opaque to be satisfactory. The statement by Cardinal DiNardo seems quite insufficient.
I mean, way *too* opaque.
Well said. Thanks.
The Vatican slow-walked McCarrick's discipline for years as well. What could possibly be both worse than sexually abusing children so as to require immediate action rather than canonical due process, and NOT merit defrocking?
Not only did Francis slow walk Uncle Ted’s discipline, in the early stages of his pontificate he actively rehabilitated Ted and reportedly relied on his advice in giving Cupich and Tobin their new assignments and subsequent red hats
This particular poor steward/manager of finances and resources had a surplus for the year, and 21 seminarians. Diocese of Harrisburg has 11, and a lot of dioceses are going bankrupt.
Bishops are not strictly responsible for their own job and barred from commenting on anything else. They have responsibilities to the whole Church, which is why St. Paul could rebuke St. Peter in the diocese of Antioch. Bishops also have responsibilities to rebuke the Pope if he's leading Catholics astray.
You've got a great list of supposed problems that might result in termination, but no evidence whatsoever that any of them are true, or are even the reasons that were actually given by the Vatican. Because the Vatican doesn't do transparency, lest anyone discover any unjust, corrupt, or incompetent actions.
The Holy Spirit is as involved in discernment as each individual bishop allows Him to be. God's Providence and permissive will encompasses such horrors as World Wars, murder, torture, mutilation, persecution, heresy, schism... If you want things to work out well for you, you have to listen and obey the Spirit, not merely declare that you're doing something really important so whatever you decide must be God's will. Cardinals in conclaves are not a magical exception to that rule. And really, even if they all did discern exactly as the Holy Spirit wished, being elected to the Papacy hardly makes a person incapable of doing evil things. Are you that bad at Church history? Strickland would hardly be the first unjustly removed bishop.
RE: Church History - As many saints can testify, although protected from error in matters of faith and morals, popes can still be incompetent, petty, stupid, vindictive, and blinkered in many ways, like any other human being. It is much easier to read historical accounts of bad popes than to live thru the reign of one. But persevere we must: "“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."
What did Bishop Strickland do that was contrary to the Catholic Faith and Catholic Morals? Did he sexually abuse children? Did he support clergy that sexually abused children, parishioners or employees? Did he bless same-sex marriages? Did he encourage gender affirming care?
Could just be terrible at his job of being a bishop and running a diocese.
I have not seen a petition to remove him from his diocese parishioners similar to the petition circulated to remove Bishop Stika. Stika was terrible at his job and was taken over by evil behavior.
Petition?
No, it couldn't because he wasn't. This is not more than a power play. The Holy Father is like a mafioso, arbitrarily whacking a subordinate for talking out of turn. One recalls Tommy DeSimone taking out Spider Gianco, as so memorably portrayed by Joe Pesci in Goodfellas.
Maybe you live in a diocese with a proper bishop? These guys don’t get fired easily. In this case and in Stika’s case, two other bishops are assigned to investigate. If you haven’t lived in a diocese with an out-of-control bishop, you aren’t free to criticize. It’s extremely damaging.
But wasn’t, ask some of us who live or serve there.
That is hardly an offense that has generally led to removal.
Except that he isn't, by any measure. Nor has anyone given any evidence to support that assertion.
Go read the hyperlinked articles
good, I am glad that Francis has taken this step, though it will undoubtedly cause outrage and other difficulties. whether you think this is a good thing or not, though, now would be a good time to pray for Bishop Strickland and the faithful of the Diocese of Tyler.
I think it is a good thing that Strickland no longer has the care of souls entrusted to him, because I think he isn't fit for that office. right now, I think he needs to engage in some soul-searching as to whether it really was merely his self-described "standing up for the truth" that brought matters to this point.
Stop with the ‘whataboutism.” Until you have lived under the rule of a man like Stika or Strickland you cannot imagine the pain.
Agreed.
But the worst case scenario I think is a breakaway German Church that dies off in a generation, leaving a small but vibrant traditionalist German Church behind to rebuild from.
I mean it's not like the German Church has never broken away before ...
Any liberal churches that break off in the West will effectively die out within 30 years and leave behind growing traditionalist movements.
I know it's hard to live through, but my general sense is increasingly that the Sexual Revolution both inside the Church and in the larger society is a problem that will solve itself with birthrates.
The Holy Spirit has got this.
Orthodoxy always wins in the end.
The PAIN? Please elaborate. Really…we need to know what he did from a member of his flock.
As you put Stika and Strickland in the same sentence, remember, Strickland’s sin is he stood up for the faith by standing against some of Francis’ public statements. Stika was in a public relationship with a seminarian USING DIOCESAN FUNDS. It still took a few years to get him to retire…and…he has no faculties from the Bishop in his diocese of residence.
The loss of 10 priests, lawsuits for mismanaging sexual abuse, people who have left the church and/or lost faith in the church, priests under medical care for what they endured, financial overreach, the extent of which is currently being investigated, using private detectives to follow people, permitting bullying and engaging in it himself…is that enough?
Are you talking about Tyler or Rome? Most of those problems seem common to both dioceses.
You’re right, people who haven’t been through this can’t imagine. Another good example is what Chicago endured under Cardinal Cody.
Thanks you for being specific. Let’s start with financial mismanagement ‘under investigation’. Don’t they usually wait for the investigation to be complete? The loss of faith among Catholics and mismanagement of sexual abuse cases, if proven true canonically, is hardly unique to Tyler nor grounds for removal.
The loss of 10 priests and those under medical care due to ‘what they endured’ is certainly worthy of attention. I would ask if you know if these priests were under duress because of disagreement with Strickland’s orthodoxy, or for other reasons? One man’s bullying is another’s quest for obedience (see Cardinal Cupich).
Can you elaborate on the issues that Strickland thought private detectives were needed? The use of PIs, while unfortunate, is sometimes necessary these days.
I appreciate the opportunity to learn from someone with firsthand knowledge, as I have only attended Mass in Tyler a few times while passing through.
If the mismanagement of sexual abuse cases isn't grounds for removal it should be.
I actually agree with you. My point was precious few have been relieved for it. What makes Strickland’s case so pressing that they didn’t even follow Francis’ own Vos Estes Lex Mundi? If I remember correctly, Bishop Strickland was against both it and the Dallas Charter because he KNEW that approach wouldn’t solve or even address the problem in the Catholic hierarchy.
I am speaking of Stika, not Strickland.
Now I am totally confused. You lumped Sitka and Strickland together. Will you please clarify?
Pointing out a double standard is not "Whataboutism." It's perfectly legitimate to ask why Francis is so quick to discipline this particular disobedient bishop while not doing more to discipline the also brazenly disobedient German Bishops, who are threatening to do far more harm by going down a path that if allowed to continue will both utterly destroy their own local Church and force a global schism much like that of the Anglicans.
Calling things "Whataboutism" is, like the accusation of "Both Sideism", just one of those left wing, "Resistance Politics" cliches that have become both empty of content and tiresome.
And you keep saying we "can't imagine the pain" but you never give us the opportunity to "imagine the pain" by sharing how the bishop created a "painful" situation for you.
Bad leaders, whether secular or ecclesiastical, are a normal part of human life. Except in extraordinary circumstances (like the abuse scandals in places like Boston or Ireland, or catastrophically broken societies like Hamas-ruled Gaza or Communist Dictatorships) people just generally live through bad leaders and their day to day lives go on as normal.
Having a bishop like Strickland (or a president like Trump) is definitely annoying. But painful? I don't know about that.
I just don't think it is healthy to put that much emotion into your leaders. A good bishop or president or governor or pastor or whatever is an incredible blessing.
But a bad one?
Eh, life goes on around them.
"Whataboutism"? That's a discredited rhetorical dig intended to prevent any and all inquiry into hypocrisy. Spare us.
probably not. I don't think that dissent and disagreement are always wrong, but there are ways of doing it which are unacceptable. when a bishop reads a letter that calls Francis a usurper, accuses him of having a program of undermining the faith, these are slanders and not mere criticisms. German bishops who disagree with Francis are at least respectful in doing so, they do not drum up opposition against him.
I don't think the ideas said German bishops are "pushing for" are actually "deadly heretical". I think I have probably made that clear before. also, I'm not actually sure that Francis has exactly ordered them to stop, so much as provided various correctives. so yes, I do think the actions and statements of Strickland are much worse.
According to someone who was present when the letter was read, the context was hearing from members of the faithful regarding the damage Pope Francis' behavior has caused, not declaring opinions regarding the validity of his election. Besides which, he preceded the letter with a reaffirmation of his belief that Pope Francis is in fact the Pope.
Cardinal Muller recently stated that many of Pope Francis' statements are most easily interpreted as material heresy. That naturally causes confusion that can easily undermine the faith. Repeated direct requests for clarification have been met with more ambiguous statements, also easily interpreted as material heresy. Is your conclusion that the Pope is too stupid to avoid undermining the faith, and therefore can't be considered to have a program?
Which is more important, respectful deference to your clerical superiors, or not teaching heresy like the German bishops? Answer carefully, Pope Francis doesn't approve of clericalism.
I don't think Strickland is a sedevacantist himself. that said, his continued association with and approval of other sedevacantists (or those flirting with sedevacantism) was a problem. even if he had not read the letter, there would already have been sufficient reason for him to be removed.
to your other comments, I simply don't believe that Francis (or the bishops of Germany, for that matter) is teaching "material heresy". he may be undermining the beliefs of certain traditionalists, but that is because their beliefs are wrong and/or evil. I think Francis' theology is correct (and also not really ambiguous, as claimed) and that his critics are wrong.
Is a bishop associating with ANY sinner a problem? Or is it only sedevacantist leanings that is a sin to merit total avoidance? Can you explain why this sin is so much worse that even bishops must take care lest such a person touch them? Or even a person who is tempted by the sin? Who is supposed to convert and strengthen them, if a bishop associating with them is reason for removal from his bishopric? How is he supposed to image Christ if he cannot be the friend of sinners without sinning and incurring just punishment?
Is it not permissible to approve of the good actions of people who have a wrong belief?
Take a moment to pretend that the Pope and a bunch of bishops ARE teaching material heresy/ambiguating the Faith and undermining it (it has happened in the past). Would it still be wrong for a bishop to say so?
I don't have a problem with pastoring sedevacantists. they should be accompanied, like anyone else. but Strickland wasn't simply having a pastoral relationship with them, he was promoting their views, views which objectively rupture the unity of the Church. he gave legitimacy to their craziness as they gave him a platform and many undeserved accolades.
if Francis was teaching something contrary to the Christian faith, then yes, it would absolutely be right to correct him.
Obviously would like to know the reasons. Already people are both applauding and bemoaning this action but I’m unable to do either without the facts. But regardless, this just inflames those who already feel Pope Francis is “against” more traditional Catholics. It feels like we can’t get even a moment of peace.
It seems as though Cardinal DiNardo did a pretty thorough job of explaining the reasoning. Well , along with the Dicastery official.
He did provide reasoning, but smells like the reasoning is just a cover for the real reason. Let's get real, if Strickland was all about progressive thinking, he would not have been touched. Pope even would of promoted him.
I’ll repeat what I said above. Until you have lived spiritually under a bp like Stika or Strickland, you can’t imagine the pain.
I SAID like STIKA not Strickland.
In what language is "like Stika" the grammatical equivalent of "like Stika or Strickland"?
I don’t know what you mean by your question, but go back to the comment, in which I said “until you have lived spiritually under a bp LIKE Stika….”
Sorry to jump in here, but I’m unclear: did Bp Strickland personally cause you pain, and, if so, how? Thank you.
I personally know many Catholics in Tyler, both priests and laity, who love Bishop Strickland.
I'll grant that it's possible that your accusation may be true, but it never was substantiated over and over again as it was with Bishop Stika. I would be careful.
We don’t know that it was not repeatedly substantiated; we know only what the press has reported.
Amén.
So the reasons have been given. Some will see it as a personal vendetta no matter what Rome says. Pretty tough to have a reasonable discussion when there is a lack of trust on both sides.
Respectfully, Father, what reasoning are you referring to? Cardinal DiNardo's statement is three short paragraphs, none of which refer to any specific reasons as to why he was removed.
Actually, the Cardinal refers to a week-long apostolic visitation conducted by two bishops that consisted of “an exhaustive inquiry into all aspects of the governance and leadership of the Diocese of Tyler.” From info previously reported, I believe by the Pillar, that is a very extensive process, involving personal interviews with many people, including clergy and laity. The conclusion from that visitation is that it is no longer feasible for Bishop Strickland to continue to lead the Diocese. The only way to be clearer as to the reasons would be to publish the visitation report or some summary of it, which I suppose is possible but which could also be interpreted as unreasonably harsh against the Bishop. Maybe that's in play here.
The Pillar's source (a Dicastery official) went into a little more detail, as I mentioned in an earlier comment.
It's hard for me not to see this as an instance of "show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
I'm sure every diocese has some mismanagement, bishops certainly aren't perfect administrators. Yet it's the outspoken traditionalists whose administrative skills are so poor that they get removed.
Yes, I would agree that every diocese has some mismanagement. But that doesn't mean that when there is a severe case, that Rome should not act to change leadership.
Bishop Martino "retired" from the Diocese of Scranton in 2009 under Pope Benedict. I think it's safe to say that Pope Benedict was not removing bishops because they were "outspoken traditionalists." I also don't believe that Bishop Spika was an "outspoken traditionalist." Sometimes a change is necessary regardless of ideology.
You're talking process, FrTim, not substance. Both are needed for transparency, which this pontificate is (to put it mildly) not known for.
Actually I'm not just talking process. But we are only privy to the process in this case. I have been involved in a canonical process and I can tell you, sadly, that some bishops...both "conservative" and "liberal" use their virtually absolute power to do great harm. I have personally been affected by that. This is a great problem in the Church hierarchy that, fortunately perhaps, many people are not aware of, because you would be scandalized by it. Your comment presumes that there is no substance behind the action of removal, which is dismissive of any person who has experienced harm because of the bishop's actions. As a person who knows how that happens and the years and years of pain it causes, I am personally very sensitive to that. I ask that you consider that there are likely people who have suffered and not discount their experience.
How are you talking more than just process, if we are only privy to the process?
We've been scandalized by enough of what we know of the Church hierarchy not to trust their decisions. Particularly when they give no reasons and skip over canonical processes for removal.
Because the process in this case involved a week of investigation done by two brother bishops involving personal interviews. And there have been reasons given, both formally and informally, as I’ve previously cited.
Giving more details on the length of the process and who did it is still just process.
General conclusions that a person should be removed are not reasons for removal.
Listing the questions the original visitation was meant to investigate are not reasons for removal... or they could have removed him without the visitation.
I've read a fair number of audit reports in non-ecclesiastical settings, and this information would be rejected even as a short summary of the conclusions. With a fair amount of astonished ridicule behind the scenes.
To give you an idea, an abstracted format might be: contrary to obligation X, Y was done, resulting in Z. Even in a summary you can't say "things weren't as good as they should have been for the things the audit looked at, so fire the VP." and call it a reason.
Are there reasons given that I haven't been able to find?
“ And there have been reasons given, both formally and informally, as I’ve previously cited.”
Excuse me for being slow and stupid, but what are they? One will have to do better than “administrative problems,” as I imagine most teenagers would charge their parents with that. Thank you.
I don't doubt your experience, FrTim, and I would never presume to make light of it. Nor do I "presume" that there is no substance here -- I just want evidence of it. Unfortunately, like many faithful Catholics scandalized by Francis and his protectees and cronies (Zanchetta, Rupnik, Tobin, Farrell, McElroy, Gregory, to name just a few), I have lost all trust in him, as he speaks out of both sides of his mouth and acts imperiously. My trust is instead in the Holy Spirit. It is He who allowed Francis to become pope. And it is He who I believe will ensure that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church -- despite Francis's relentless attempts to make it over in his own image and likeness. I continue to pray for him.
These situations are indeed a reminder that we must trust in the Holy Spirit. For all history His will is done in spite of us, praise God! We are on the same page there for sure! And I’d appreciate your prayers too!
Be assured of my prayers, FrTim!
It pains me to say this FrTim, but based on the track record of the Vatican in recent years, I have little faith that the apostolic visitation of Strickland was anything other than a Soviet style show trial with a pre ordained outcome dictated from above. Remember these are the same folks that said that TC was issued as a result of a “survey” which indicated the various Latin Mass communities were nefariously working to undermine Vatican II
Fairly certain the timing of this serves as a warning shot to the US Bishops, who gather this coming week for the November USCCB meeting.
I don't know anything about the Diocese of Tyler: not my fight, not my problem. But, man oh man do I long for a new Bishop of Rome. I am so sick of the fighting and ill will the current one has thrown up for no decent reason.
It seems to me that I was taught that charity begins at home. I don't know what is going on but I suppose one can say that Bishop Strickland was guilty of betraying this. Likewise, Pope Francis is also guilty. I interpret that the Holy Father's attitude towards a big block of US Catholics to be equally if not greater in lack of charity. With this example at the top how can we do different? Listen to what they say when they teach the Gospel but don't follow their example I suppose. That is as charitable as I can be at the moment. I am trying to keep from discouragement. Pray for the Holy Father, pray for Bishop Strickland . Pray for the faithful that we stay focused on the Lord.
Yes. I agree that neither side is showing either prudence or charity, and Francis's attitude towards American Catholics is troubling.
"Troubling" indeed, Anonymama. I might also call it--to borrow MLMinET's word--"painful."
> I interpret that the Holy Father's attitude towards a big block of US Catholics to be equally if not greater in lack of charity.
Following St. Philip Neri's four things necessary for humility ("spernere mundum, spernere nullum, spernere se ipsum, spernere se sperni") we ought to more-or-less ignore being despised; we ought not to be attached to it either in a positive sense (liking to be disliked by someone: you see, he hates us, therefore we are the good guys) *or* in a negative sense (being saddened and upset that we are not loved as we expected to be loved), we ought to pay no attention to it and just go on with the work of allowing God to make us into saints.
I suppose you are right, but it is hard to witness the Holy Father's disregard. We are talking about a family member. He is afterall the Holy Father of the catholic faithful. It isn't a good evangelization tool for the Catholic faith anyway. St Philip Neri was a better man than I because it does make me a little sad. It doesn't stop me, but it makes me sad.
Hey all, just a reminder as we discuss this difficult subject, of The Pillar’s comment policy: Christian charity.
It is our believe that Pillar readers - Christians of exceptional judgment and discernment - can demonstrate how to discuss serious and contentious issues while excelling in charity toward their interlocutors, and the issues they discuss.
Let’s do it.
Belief.
Thank you JD.
The uneven discipline during this pontificate is something that hurts me deeply. I am going to spend some time with my family and pray instead of comment further.
JD the Pope is spiritually abusive toward American conservative Catholics, he constantly castigates us and makes no secret of his contempt for us. Yes let us be as charitable as we can, but the only appropriate reaction to an abuser is to resist and to name the abuse for what it is
Why do you say that? And please define "conservative Catholic" so we are all clear what you mean. Thanks.
Castigates and speaks with contempt (your examples of abusive behavior) sound more like "verbally abusive" to me. I am not sure how I would leap from those directly to "spiritually abusive" (since I guess I have mostly seen that phrase in connection with a rotten spiritual director, or within a religious community, etc.)
In the case of verbal abuse, yes, it could be useful to remind the victims "this was not an appropriate thing for that person to say; it was a verbally abusive thing, which you did not deserve" (or, depending on the thing that was said, "which no one ever deserves", e.g. if he called conservative Catholics "fat and ugly" there is no circumstance in which that would be appropriate.) It could also be useful to remind the victims of their options: they can go no-contact, which (since the relationship with the Pope is strictly one-way and no one ever has to worry about "what if we are both invited to the same party" in this life... there will eventually be an important wedding to which we are all invited, of course) would simply mean not reading any news coverage about what he has said; or they can go low-contact which means (in a one-way relationship with a celebrity) being very selective about what news coverage to consume and confining it to very special occasions. Or they can continue to have a one-way abusive relationship with a celebrity who never encounters them in person, by obsessively reading news about the celebrity even though they know they won't like reading it (like secretly following an ex-boyfriend on social media in order to feel bad, letting him live rent-free in one's head), which is a strange choice but a common one in this modern era. It is a lot easier to stop reading news about the Pope than to deal with co-parenting with a face-to-face chronic verbal abuser.
I hope he is sent to a rural community of medically trained religious sisters who will slice and dice him in holy prayer and work of six months. Make him chop wood too, Sisters.
If you mean Stika, I agree with you.
Him too. In fact, it would not hurt all the bishops for them to go on a spiritual Club Med retreat with disciplined Marine like religious sisters who will only bring out the best in them by way of fasting, acts of Corporal works of mercy, counseling, hours in prayer each day, cutting the grass, biking on dirt roads, and so much more. I did it and survived. They would as well. https://creyna.substack.com/?utm_source=navbar&utm_medium=web&r=fo3ax
I think it is possible to sympathize with Strickland's frustration with the pope while also recognizing that Strickland's behavior is neither appropriate or holy for a bishop, and therefore undermines his cause.
Holiness is indispensable to someone who seeks to defend the truth of the faith. When defending the faith against what one believes the errors of a *superior* I think a Catholic needs to take extra care not just to maintain charity, but obedience as well, as obedience to legitimate demands by legitimate church authority, even when painful or difficult, is a mark of spiritual authenticity.
I'm not saying that a good Catholic can never disagree with a Pope or bishop or pastor, but just that one should do so carefully and in a spirit of docility.
Your point would be served with concrete and specific examples; otherwise your comment appears as polemic.
St Joan of Arc, St (Padre) Pio, St. John of the Cross, Abp Fulton Sheen, Blessed Franz Jaegerstaetter (with the Bishop of Linz at the time - although not religious, his bishop did not have his back!), not to mention St Thomas More and Bp Fisher, deserted by their companions... .
With the velvet steamroller of synodality sowing confusion and dubia responses muddying the doctrinal waters even more, I welcome someone like Strickland providing a public counter to the Roman nonsense. I recall Jesus cleansing the temple in a direct, righteously angry way that was shocking to the senses no doubt, but reinforced a strong message.
Jesus is divine, and his divinity gave him the authority and perfect wisdom to act during his 33 years as a man in human society in ways we cannot.
I'm not saying that we should never criticize church authorities - far from it - but being able to effectively challenge superiors within the church depends very much on being able to do so in a way that is *holy* and it requires a high degree of prudence.
Having read the Pillar's previous report on this situation, my impression is that Strickland has at the very least walked right up to the boundary, if not crossed it.
Pope Francis is not my favorite at all.
The synod makes me uneasy and I think the dubia responses could be more clear and less... jesuitical. But I think the synod has shown some positive signs of turning away from the more controversial issues and there was nothing heretical in the dubia responses, which affirm Church teaching while making space for pastoral discretion that does not challenge those teachings. (No, Francis never said gay *couples* could be blessed; of course a trans person who has had surgery but is struggling could be baptized and brought to repentance, etc.)
Francis has done a lot that should be criticized. I don't think he will be remembered as a great pope. But he's not the evil heretical antipope, either.
As someone very much on Team "Francis's Critics" I think those criticisms will be more effective for the good of the Church if they come from a place of deep and obvious humility and are done in a way that is more respectful of the office he holds.
You make good points but look at the situation we are in now. Nuanced dubia answers one day, next day MSM headlines screaming “pope says trans can be baptized and godparents”. Also “Church approves blessings of same sex couples “. Given the gravity of the doctrine involved, you would think Rome would put out explicit explanations and instructions, for how exactly to explain things to the faithful. Yet none of that happens, confusion, reigns supreme, and you can’t help but think that this is all part of a larger plan by Francis and his like minded cohort. No, it is time for faithful shepherds to stand up against this, and publicly so.
I get what you are saying and find it frustrating as well.
But I think faithful bishops would do more good if they used their voices to, say, counter inaccurate media messaging and clarifying what the dubias actually say rather than attacking the pope on social media.
I read the dubia answers and I personally thought their meaning was pretty obvious and didn't see anything unorthodox, even if the wording was vague. I thought the media messaging was wildly and deliberately inaccurate. I think the faithful bishops who are frustrated with the media spin would be way more effective if, rather than attack the pope and foster a "rogue conservatives vs Francis" narrative, they instead forcefully countered the media narratives, clarified the meaning of the dubia answers, and highlight the openly orthodox positions Francis has taken on both transgenderism and gay marriage.
By focusing on defending Church teaching, highlighting the pope's orthodox statements, and countering media spin, the bishops could accomplish a lot more defense of orthodoxy without compromising the visible unity of the Church, even if privately Francis makes them seethe.
Attacking the pope on social media just plays right into the Commonweal and America Mag crowd and their narrative of "rogue conservatives against the pope."
I know it's frustrating. But without compromising my anonymity I'll just say I worked for church institutions for 20 years, across the entire ideological spectrum. You have to maintain your integrity but you also have to play the game *smart.*
Strickland didn't play the game smart.
And when you don't play smart the only side you hurt is your own.
When the answers are not simple yes/no, or as short as possible, then they are open to spin. You are basically stating that the bishops need to spin the Pope’s responses. The better solution is for the Pope/DDF to be direct as possible and not have statements with many interpretations.
Many people are coming to the conclusion that this is never going to happen. Even worse is that it is done on purpose to be vague so that everyone can have their own interpretation.
I agree with you, and I always refer to this article by Dr Jeff Mirus when things happen- I think "bishop" can apply to any church authority figure....
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/why-there-is-no-obedience-crisis-with-your-bad-bishop/?repos=6&subrepos=0&searchid=2344530
Very interesting article. Thank you for the link.
Excellent article, and a great reminder for me. Thanks.
Perhaps you could rephrase: <The Pope has frequently said things that are most easily interpreted as material heresy, which is gravely harmful to the Faithful and undermines the deposit of the faith> (my paraphrase) in a way that continues to disagree with the Pope to the same extent, but does so carefully and in a spirit of docility?
I've heard a lot of complaints about tone and tact both in and out of the Church. Nobody ever offers a rephrase with the complaints.
Apparently, Strickland chose the wrong "crime" to commit: questioning Francis' agenda. If he had merely possessed child pornography or raped a kid/woman religious but been loyal to Francis, the pope would have considered giving him oversight of Vatican finances or made him director of the papal residence (e.g., Zanchetta and Ricca) or defaming his victims (e.g., Grassi). Compare the timeline of Rupnik's excommunication being lifted with the timeline of Strickland being removed, and you know everything you can get a fairly good idea of where Pope Francis' priorities lie.
-- For my friends everything, for everyone else, the law (arbitrarily and questionably applied).
The Rupnick, SJ affair and Strickland’s case are indeed rather canonically and legally problematic when set side by side.
Not SJ. Even the Jesuits kicked him out before the Vatican figured out maybe he shouldn't be allowed in ministry.
Rupnick was active as an SJ just in 2022, yet the Pope and his superiors apparently knew about his past. (The pope is also a Jesuit). He met with him last year personally. How is that possible given what both the Jesuits and the Vatican knew about his crimes from many years prior? He has been a sexual assaulter for years and years.
To be fair, the last three pontificates have acted as if there were people out to "get them."
Look for Strickland to upset many of the current ultramontanist modernists by showing up in their dioceses to lead TLM, Pro-life, anti-pedophile etc. prayer rallies/marches.
Getting rid of Bishop Strickland is just a small part of Francis' program. Remember that Francis declared almost ten years ago he wanted to "Make a Mess!" in the Church. [Translation: Destroy the Church and then rebuild it to accomplish long term goals of the Church's enemies.]
Analyze how the sacking of the good Bishop Strickland fits well with Francis' plan. Other Bishops are warned to not oppose Francis' heresies (or apostasy) or they also will be removed.
While they might want to openly support Bishop Strickland, they know this will lead to a clear division which they believe will weaken the Church. Good Bishops mistakenly believe they can avoid a schism, even when it is inevitable and actually desired by Francis. How best for him to "Make a Mess!" in the Church and remove faithful orthodox Catholics.
The Catholic Bishops emphasis on a false Unity of divergent beliefs thus leads to the renunciation of orthodoxy, the absolutely critical element of Unity.
Good Bishops also are trained to preserve the wrong thing, MONEY! Yet they see that 90% of Catholics now attending Sunday Mass are OLD, over 40-45 years of age. In 20 years, Sunday Mass attendance (and contributions) will sink to abysmally low levels. Bishops' policies can delay addressing this development until it actually arrives, but it would be better for them to clarify this matter now with faithful Catholics. Any possible solutions must be spiritual, not financial.
Will the Church survive? Of course. But the vine of the Church now is being severely trimmed back to a small stump (I used to trim grapes, and old grapes sometimes need this!). Only militant orthodox Catholics will remain, a small confirmed remnant to regrow the Church. Will they need large churches and employees? Nope!
Active persecution likely will come too, hastening the loss, but will inevitably strengthen the faith of new soldiers for Christ.
Yet the old vine of Catholic Christianity eventually will produce many crops of new grapes after severe pruning.
Have there been other recent cases of bishops being removed for reasons similar to the Vatican reasons provided(mild general administrative incompetence)? I find it hard to believe that of all the administrative incompetence of all the bishops in the US and abroad, it just so happens to be the case that Bishop Strickland was so uniquely incompetent that he had to be removed from post, rather than trained for greater administrative competence.
A diocese only gets a Vos estis if tons of priests and laity complain and their complaints are found to be warranted. That’s what happened here. Mild administrative incompetence, no; a widespread climate of distrust and abuse, like a bad work situation, is what leads to Vos estis.
I think some of us are a bit suspicious and believe Vos Estis was used as the vehicle for legal expediency to satisfy a seemingly personal vendetta. The asymmetry of the application of canon law speaks to the will of it's enforcer.
This was the outcome of a process, though, not a quick decision. Vos estis isn’t for people the Pope disagrees with, it’s to give relief to clergy and laity suffering under a bad bishop. He remains a bishop, just not of those people. Now, he’ll have even more time to heckle Pope Francis.
Your choice of words clearly shows your bias. Exactly what Scott O is talking about.
Yeah. I’m a flaming liberal Catholic mother of seven. You people can have Trump and your sickeningly rich lifestyle—go ahead, laugh while the world burns. As for me, I will live for Jesus Christ and obey the Pope.
“You people”, “sickeningly rich lifestyle”...this is obviously about more than Bishop Strickland. Sorry to have troubled your day. Know you are in my prayers.
I accept your apology. It is about more than Bishop Strickland, it is about no longer feeling welcome in many church groups because I’m not a Republican—after not feeling welcome most places because we have “so many kids.”
Like I said…your issue is more than Bishop Strickland.
Yeah I’m pretty hurt and mad at this point. I do appreciate your prayers, assuming that wasn’t sarcasm.
I also want to apologize to you for the violence of my words yesterday. I am sorry for lashing out at you in particular. Pray for me, and let us all pray for unity in the church here in the United States.
Oh, the true colors are now showing!
What about relief to clergy and laity suffering under a horrible pope?
Bishop Strickland was the subject of an apostolic visitation, not a vos estis investigation, which involves sexual abuse or the coverup of sexual abuse.
At least according to this: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/papa-francesco-motu-proprio-20190507_vos-estis-lux-mundi.html
I think you’re right about this! I admit that the distinction is lost on me … is there an explainer on Vos estis vs. apostolic visitation? All I know is that Vos estis is the new way to visitate a diocese with serious bishop concerns. It was my understanding that Vos estis concerned not just sexual abuse by a bishop, but also abuse of authority—in which case the extraordinary apostolic visitation vs. Vos estis becomes even less clear. Is that not the case?
VELM is concerned with crimes of sexual abuse (not abuses of authority in general.) Wikipedia describes it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vos_estis_lux_mundi
or the original source document is at https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2019/05/09/0390/00804.html#EN
There is a Pillar explainer on it when it was about to expire in its 3-year trial phase https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/what-does-vos-estis-need-now
and then another explainer when the Vatican got around to realizing that it had expired and putting out a slightly revised version https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/pope-francis-promulgates-revised
Monforton was just removed in Steubenville for administrative incompetence, though it was perhaps more than mild