So after ousting him without ever outlining the cause, they are now dependent on his good favor to prevent further damaging the relationship between the local Church and Rome, a relationship that was mostly fine until Francis deposed Strickland without giving the flock a reason why.
Big surprise the flock now looks upon him (and those he appointed over them) with suspicion.
Well, from Bishop Strickland's own words, he was given "several pages" of "issues" and "concerns" from the nuncio, so it wasn't like the causes weren't outlined to him.
Care to demonstrate how we know that? But either way, a lack of transparency is going to fuel mistrust. Whether you think that's warranted or not is irrelevant, it fuels mistrust, as is clearly plain here. Otherwise they wouldn't need to beg Strickland (originally accused of fostering disunity through his governance) of needing to keep a low profile to maintain unity.
It doesn't seem like the Vatican generally ever lists the details of controversial bishops who are relieved of their duties. For example, all that the Vatican said about Bishop Stika was: "The Holy Father has accepted the resignation from the pastoral care of the diocese of Knoxville, United States of America, presented by Bishop Richard F. Stika."
No real laundry list of his mismanagements. And the mistrust which is alleged to have happened with regards to Bishop's Strickland's removal doesn't seem to match the mistrust created by Bishop Strickland towards the Apostolic See, which has provoked many faithful to disobedience to the Pope's teaching authority.
What faithful are engaging in what disobedience as laity to the pope at the incitement of Strickland? Gonna need some citations there chief.
I'm going off of what sources mentioned here.
And yes, you are correct Rome seldom gives reasons. And that causes distrust and suspicion. Especially when, as is clear, Strickland was well liked in his diocese
(1) Among the inciting incidents of Bishop Strickland would have been his statement accusing Pope Francis of having a "program of undermining the Deposit of Faith" and his signing of a statement accusing the Pope of heresy. During the Apostolic Visitation of Bishop Strickland's diocese, John-Henry Westen hosted Peter Kwasniewski on LifeSiteNews on a show titled, "Bishop Joseph Strickland Must Resist Pope Francis If Told To Step Down," arguing disobedience against Pope Francis. So there we have lay disobedience against the Holy See, with Kwasniewski seemingly in agreement with Bishop Strickland that Pope Francis has a program to undermine the deposit of faith.
(2) Glad to have demonstrated that it isn't standard Vatican practice to rattle off all the reasons why they administratively remove a bishop.
(3) And do you have citations for Bishop Strickland being well-liked in his diocese?
It's not been my intention to act cute, and I've been trying to discuss with you in a brotherly way, so I'm sorry if I haven't come across that way. I sought to answer the questions that you asked and seek the bases of your viewpoint.
(1) I don't see how there's been "no disobedience incited". Bishop Strickland's statement that Pope Francis has a "program of undermining the Deposit of Faith" itself really seems to incite disobedience (in the sense of "The Pope in his teachings is undermining the Deposit of the Faith, so you need not obey his teachings"), but even if that weren't enough I went on to show that there were leading Catholic lay commentators taking the point that Bishop Strickland made and running with it further in a case that directly involved him. And that program reaches more than just the two Catholics talking.
(2) I understood it wasn't part of your point, but you did seem to put it out as a point of dispute. My initial claim was that the Vatican doesn't normally list the reasons why they remove a bishop administratively to allow the bishop to save face, and you asked "how [do] we know that?", which made it at least seem somewhat in dispute. So I was trying to answer your question in good faith.
(3) I don't think that them asking him to keep a low profile is determinative of him being well-liked in his diocese. It just as much points to the fact that part of his removal came from a very active presence and high profile that seemed to become detrimental. I think that's the more likely option, and so I was seeking the sources of your knowledge.
You showed that there was one lay commentator who supported, but you didn't show any actual disobedient actions. I think the Pillar would have noted them if there were any.
I am glad that St. Peter didn't remove St. Paul after Paul rebuked him correctly. But Pope Francis is not St. Peter, or even Popes Benedict or John Paul II who allowed bishops to criticize them and the only bishops they removed preached heresy or committed sexual sins. The pride of Pope Francis is so sad.
He probably created some distrust, yes; I don't know what people are being disobedient to specifically that they weren't already disobedient to, but any propagation of a vague "I reject what this Pope says before he says it because he said it" attitude of mind would be just as useful for the enemy.
I suspect the more common attitude is a vague "I ignore what this Pope says because it's probably wrong or at least confusing and unhelpful. Especially if the mainstream news bothers to report it. And it's not like he can authoritatively teach anything entirely new anyway."
The Bishops no matter where are sacrosanct and untouchable.Vos Estes is words on paper to give the impression that there is accountability. The governance of this church is as weak as can be and yet the apathy of the faithful is so sad. These men have been so reverenced by blatant clericalism that no matter what is done or suggested is covered up. Until we find our voices in charity nothing will change. We are supposed to look to shepherds first who are fathers to their priests then leaders to us. Smell like the sheep,I don’t think so.Smell like dictators and elites is more accurate. Prayer is the only answer because governance doesn’t care.
The bishop hasn't lost face though, at least not with Catholics. The issues weren't published to protect the Pope, not to to protect Strickland, just as they were not published in the McCarrick case.
But the main criticism appeared to be: "he didn't even know why he was being deposed." But in actuality, he had knowledge of the reasons, which allows him the ability to know what the issues were.
So he's not been "banned" from publicly celebrating Mass just "asked to consider" refraining from publicly celebrating Mass? Temporarily, of course. What's the Bishop supposed to do with that? If he refrains as requested, its effect is still the same as a ban. If he decides not to refrain as "asked", he's likely to be portrayed as continuing to be disobedient?
My workplace has had a director step down, with the replaced person continuing to work there. She rotated through another department for a while before returning, because it actually is quite hard to get things sorted out with your predecessor there, even though there is mutual respect, no hard feelings to be had, and no injustice.
I expect the bishop has enough wisdom to refrain for a while, and then start celebrating Mass publicly again. Possibly he will move to another diocese. But he seems to have a good head on his shoulders.
I suspect there are people who would portray other Catholics, including bishops, as "disobedient" for not jumping enthusiastically if the Pope mentioned that jumping is admirable. But it's a bad idea to act in order to avoid unreasonable criticism - or to overcorrect in the opposite direction.
Thank you for a thoughtful reply. I do pray your hopefulness is more accurate than my cynicism.
I saw what happened when the Bishop was "asked" to not attend the USCCB meeting. He complied yet showed up to honor a previously made promise to pray the Rosary with folks outside, as he has done in the past to their great gratitude. Yet he received criticism for that, with many implying he was grandstanding. Others suggested that if he was there at all, he should have ignored the "request" not to attend the meeting because it wasn't a "ban." Thus, I fear the Bishop may be in a current no-win situation as well, but again, I shall hope you are right and I am wrong.
Maybe. My response to some criticisms has been to shrug, because I was already aware that the person making them wasn't particularly good at observing or analyzing reality, or simply wasn't in a position to know the relevant facts. And I suspect he's got a lot more practice than I do at both good and bad criticism. Plus he sits with the Blessed Sacrament for an hour a day. That can mend a lot worse than a combox can inflict.
If LifeSiteNews said the sun was shining, I wouldn't believe it unless I looked out a window to check for myself. They are occasionally correct... but even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day. It happens, but not very often. They are FAR from being a credible news source.
That's why I read the Pillar, and they filter out the noise and bring out clarity. Still it is disturbing pertaining to what happened to Bishop Strickland
We should know the extent to which papal or episcopal criticism by a subordinate is legitimate within the Church. If never, that should be made clear too, and then the laity can expect to take upon themselves a greater role here instead of deferring it to the clergy.
The cardinals under Pope John XXII forced him to retract his public teaching as pope that there is no beatific vision. They are the body responsible for making sure the pope stays within the faith.
That's actually the domain of all the successors of the Apostles. They all have teaching authority within their diocese, and responsibility for the good of the whole Church.
"But The Pillar confirmed Thursday that in a meeting of diocesan staff and clergy, Vasquez explained that Strickland had been asked to temporarily limit his public presence in the diocese, including the celebration of public Masses.."
Asked and forced or "barred" seems to be a distinction without a difference.
After all, Strickland was "asked" to resign, he refused, and then was summarily kicked out anyway (without a public reason given or an opportunity to either "repent" or explain himself).
It seems that Strickland sees this as a de facto ban on public masses as well: I doubt the diocese has so many priests that a busy pastor couldn't use some help with an early Sunday mass or daily mass when he also has a funeral.
Very true. In this diocese the same bishop who said “ you are a priest FOREVER,according to the order of Melchizedek “ is the same one silencing some. Really??
He can't be forced or barred. Bishops have faculties wherever they go, unless defrocked, so it would be both valid and licit regardless of whether the diocesan bishop liked it.
Changes in leadership are always a bit complex and chaotic. Having the former leadership publicly active in the diocese being turned over generally doesn't make it simpler or more orderly, particularly not after an unjust removal from office.
Presumably Bishop Strickland has the gumption to celebrate Mass in public if he doesn't think refraining temporarily is for the good of the diocese.
It is hard to justify the shoddy treatment of Bishop Strickland when laid up side-by-side with the papal protections offered to Fr Rupnik, SJ, The Chilean bishops Juan Barrios, Gonzalo Duarte, et al (Juan Barrios was actually apointed a bishop by Francis after having covered up the tracks of a child molester) and other cases where real canonical or civil crimes have clearly been committed. More so when no one from Rome or the USCCB can actually and with any sort of definitive statement, explain why Bishop Strickland was removed from his diocese, other than some vague generalities. There is so much innuendo, and so few hard facts, it does have the appearance now of a papal or McElroyian/Cupichian vendetta, as opposed to something really substantial with canonical weight. I will add that many a bishop (and many a pope too) has been heavy-handed, ham-fisted with sound bites, mean-spirited, a poor financial manager, or in one way or another lacking in that hard to define "Romanitas" character. This does not automatically exclude a bishop from his office. The silence makes me ever more suspicious that the canonical visitation team found anything really substantial about his "governance and leadership" other than he disagreed with the Pope on some moral questions. Maybe there was indeed something, but why not share the basic findings of the canonical visitation? I thought this was the age of synodality and open conversation.
Even more, may it make him at least worthy of being a canonized Saint
So after ousting him without ever outlining the cause, they are now dependent on his good favor to prevent further damaging the relationship between the local Church and Rome, a relationship that was mostly fine until Francis deposed Strickland without giving the flock a reason why.
Big surprise the flock now looks upon him (and those he appointed over them) with suspicion.
Well, from Bishop Strickland's own words, he was given "several pages" of "issues" and "concerns" from the nuncio, so it wasn't like the causes weren't outlined to him.
But how many of them were related to the removal, vs the garden variety "stuff that Francis is annoyed by?" Even strickland says he doesn't know.
And in this case, its more the flock doesn't know, and that is what is causing the consternation to where this is viewed necessary.
The issues and concerns weren't publicized to the faithful to allow the bishop to save face, which seems like a fair practice.
Care to demonstrate how we know that? But either way, a lack of transparency is going to fuel mistrust. Whether you think that's warranted or not is irrelevant, it fuels mistrust, as is clearly plain here. Otherwise they wouldn't need to beg Strickland (originally accused of fostering disunity through his governance) of needing to keep a low profile to maintain unity.
It doesn't seem like the Vatican generally ever lists the details of controversial bishops who are relieved of their duties. For example, all that the Vatican said about Bishop Stika was: "The Holy Father has accepted the resignation from the pastoral care of the diocese of Knoxville, United States of America, presented by Bishop Richard F. Stika."
No real laundry list of his mismanagements. And the mistrust which is alleged to have happened with regards to Bishop's Strickland's removal doesn't seem to match the mistrust created by Bishop Strickland towards the Apostolic See, which has provoked many faithful to disobedience to the Pope's teaching authority.
What faithful are engaging in what disobedience as laity to the pope at the incitement of Strickland? Gonna need some citations there chief.
I'm going off of what sources mentioned here.
And yes, you are correct Rome seldom gives reasons. And that causes distrust and suspicion. Especially when, as is clear, Strickland was well liked in his diocese
(1) Among the inciting incidents of Bishop Strickland would have been his statement accusing Pope Francis of having a "program of undermining the Deposit of Faith" and his signing of a statement accusing the Pope of heresy. During the Apostolic Visitation of Bishop Strickland's diocese, John-Henry Westen hosted Peter Kwasniewski on LifeSiteNews on a show titled, "Bishop Joseph Strickland Must Resist Pope Francis If Told To Step Down," arguing disobedience against Pope Francis. So there we have lay disobedience against the Holy See, with Kwasniewski seemingly in agreement with Bishop Strickland that Pope Francis has a program to undermine the deposit of faith.
(2) Glad to have demonstrated that it isn't standard Vatican practice to rattle off all the reasons why they administratively remove a bishop.
(3) And do you have citations for Bishop Strickland being well-liked in his diocese?
1.) So no disobedience incited? Got it.
2.) You proved something not in dispute and part of my point? Congrats?
3.) The very fact he's being asked to keep a low profile because of a difficult transition.
But given you seem to be more interested in acting cute than having a good interaction, enjoy the last word.
It's not been my intention to act cute, and I've been trying to discuss with you in a brotherly way, so I'm sorry if I haven't come across that way. I sought to answer the questions that you asked and seek the bases of your viewpoint.
(1) I don't see how there's been "no disobedience incited". Bishop Strickland's statement that Pope Francis has a "program of undermining the Deposit of Faith" itself really seems to incite disobedience (in the sense of "The Pope in his teachings is undermining the Deposit of the Faith, so you need not obey his teachings"), but even if that weren't enough I went on to show that there were leading Catholic lay commentators taking the point that Bishop Strickland made and running with it further in a case that directly involved him. And that program reaches more than just the two Catholics talking.
(2) I understood it wasn't part of your point, but you did seem to put it out as a point of dispute. My initial claim was that the Vatican doesn't normally list the reasons why they remove a bishop administratively to allow the bishop to save face, and you asked "how [do] we know that?", which made it at least seem somewhat in dispute. So I was trying to answer your question in good faith.
(3) I don't think that them asking him to keep a low profile is determinative of him being well-liked in his diocese. It just as much points to the fact that part of his removal came from a very active presence and high profile that seemed to become detrimental. I think that's the more likely option, and so I was seeking the sources of your knowledge.
You showed that there was one lay commentator who supported, but you didn't show any actual disobedient actions. I think the Pillar would have noted them if there were any.
I am glad that St. Peter didn't remove St. Paul after Paul rebuked him correctly. But Pope Francis is not St. Peter, or even Popes Benedict or John Paul II who allowed bishops to criticize them and the only bishops they removed preached heresy or committed sexual sins. The pride of Pope Francis is so sad.
He probably created some distrust, yes; I don't know what people are being disobedient to specifically that they weren't already disobedient to, but any propagation of a vague "I reject what this Pope says before he says it because he said it" attitude of mind would be just as useful for the enemy.
I suspect the more common attitude is a vague "I ignore what this Pope says because it's probably wrong or at least confusing and unhelpful. Especially if the mainstream news bothers to report it. And it's not like he can authoritatively teach anything entirely new anyway."
The Bishops no matter where are sacrosanct and untouchable.Vos Estes is words on paper to give the impression that there is accountability. The governance of this church is as weak as can be and yet the apathy of the faithful is so sad. These men have been so reverenced by blatant clericalism that no matter what is done or suggested is covered up. Until we find our voices in charity nothing will change. We are supposed to look to shepherds first who are fathers to their priests then leaders to us. Smell like the sheep,I don’t think so.Smell like dictators and elites is more accurate. Prayer is the only answer because governance doesn’t care.
The bishop hasn't lost face though, at least not with Catholics. The issues weren't published to protect the Pope, not to to protect Strickland, just as they were not published in the McCarrick case.
He wasn’t “given” but “shown” and he wasn’t permitted to retain those “several pages”.
But the main criticism appeared to be: "he didn't even know why he was being deposed." But in actuality, he had knowledge of the reasons, which allows him the ability to know what the issues were.
I wasn’t responding to that: I was responding to what you had written and which was incorrect.
Bishop Strickland, Bishop Sheen, Cardinal Burke, persecuted by the church...pray for us.
Add Mary of the Cross Mackillop, Ignatius of Loyola, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila…
Having said that, plenty of other people have been sanctioned and it’s had the opposite effect. See Leonard Boff for example.
So he's not been "banned" from publicly celebrating Mass just "asked to consider" refraining from publicly celebrating Mass? Temporarily, of course. What's the Bishop supposed to do with that? If he refrains as requested, its effect is still the same as a ban. If he decides not to refrain as "asked", he's likely to be portrayed as continuing to be disobedient?
Privately celebrating Mass isn't the same thing.
It's called purgatory.
Yeah, but purgatory is painful yet has a good and holy purpose. What is the holy purpose of this "request"? Who benefits?
My workplace has had a director step down, with the replaced person continuing to work there. She rotated through another department for a while before returning, because it actually is quite hard to get things sorted out with your predecessor there, even though there is mutual respect, no hard feelings to be had, and no injustice.
I expect the bishop has enough wisdom to refrain for a while, and then start celebrating Mass publicly again. Possibly he will move to another diocese. But he seems to have a good head on his shoulders.
I suspect there are people who would portray other Catholics, including bishops, as "disobedient" for not jumping enthusiastically if the Pope mentioned that jumping is admirable. But it's a bad idea to act in order to avoid unreasonable criticism - or to overcorrect in the opposite direction.
Thank you for a thoughtful reply. I do pray your hopefulness is more accurate than my cynicism.
I saw what happened when the Bishop was "asked" to not attend the USCCB meeting. He complied yet showed up to honor a previously made promise to pray the Rosary with folks outside, as he has done in the past to their great gratitude. Yet he received criticism for that, with many implying he was grandstanding. Others suggested that if he was there at all, he should have ignored the "request" not to attend the meeting because it wasn't a "ban." Thus, I fear the Bishop may be in a current no-win situation as well, but again, I shall hope you are right and I am wrong.
Oh, I completely expect he will be criticized for anything beyond hiding under a rock. I just don't expect him to pay any attention to that criticism.
He's a human being. It's got to hurt.
Maybe. My response to some criticisms has been to shrug, because I was already aware that the person making them wasn't particularly good at observing or analyzing reality, or simply wasn't in a position to know the relevant facts. And I suspect he's got a lot more practice than I do at both good and bad criticism. Plus he sits with the Blessed Sacrament for an hour a day. That can mend a lot worse than a combox can inflict.
If LifeSiteNews said the sun was shining, I wouldn't believe it unless I looked out a window to check for myself. They are occasionally correct... but even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day. It happens, but not very often. They are FAR from being a credible news source.
That's why I read the Pillar, and they filter out the noise and bring out clarity. Still it is disturbing pertaining to what happened to Bishop Strickland
We should know the extent to which papal or episcopal criticism by a subordinate is legitimate within the Church. If never, that should be made clear too, and then the laity can expect to take upon themselves a greater role here instead of deferring it to the clergy.
The cardinals under Pope John XXII forced him to retract his public teaching as pope that there is no beatific vision. They are the body responsible for making sure the pope stays within the faith.
That's actually the domain of all the successors of the Apostles. They all have teaching authority within their diocese, and responsibility for the good of the whole Church.
"But The Pillar confirmed Thursday that in a meeting of diocesan staff and clergy, Vasquez explained that Strickland had been asked to temporarily limit his public presence in the diocese, including the celebration of public Masses.."
Asked and forced or "barred" seems to be a distinction without a difference.
After all, Strickland was "asked" to resign, he refused, and then was summarily kicked out anyway (without a public reason given or an opportunity to either "repent" or explain himself).
It seems that Strickland sees this as a de facto ban on public masses as well: I doubt the diocese has so many priests that a busy pastor couldn't use some help with an early Sunday mass or daily mass when he also has a funeral.
(edited to make the meaning clearer)
Very true. In this diocese the same bishop who said “ you are a priest FOREVER,according to the order of Melchizedek “ is the same one silencing some. Really??
He can't be forced or barred. Bishops have faculties wherever they go, unless defrocked, so it would be both valid and licit regardless of whether the diocesan bishop liked it.
Changes in leadership are always a bit complex and chaotic. Having the former leadership publicly active in the diocese being turned over generally doesn't make it simpler or more orderly, particularly not after an unjust removal from office.
Presumably Bishop Strickland has the gumption to celebrate Mass in public if he doesn't think refraining temporarily is for the good of the diocese.
This is a perfect example of why not to trust LifeSite News.
It is hard to justify the shoddy treatment of Bishop Strickland when laid up side-by-side with the papal protections offered to Fr Rupnik, SJ, The Chilean bishops Juan Barrios, Gonzalo Duarte, et al (Juan Barrios was actually apointed a bishop by Francis after having covered up the tracks of a child molester) and other cases where real canonical or civil crimes have clearly been committed. More so when no one from Rome or the USCCB can actually and with any sort of definitive statement, explain why Bishop Strickland was removed from his diocese, other than some vague generalities. There is so much innuendo, and so few hard facts, it does have the appearance now of a papal or McElroyian/Cupichian vendetta, as opposed to something really substantial with canonical weight. I will add that many a bishop (and many a pope too) has been heavy-handed, ham-fisted with sound bites, mean-spirited, a poor financial manager, or in one way or another lacking in that hard to define "Romanitas" character. This does not automatically exclude a bishop from his office. The silence makes me ever more suspicious that the canonical visitation team found anything really substantial about his "governance and leadership" other than he disagreed with the Pope on some moral questions. Maybe there was indeed something, but why not share the basic findings of the canonical visitation? I thought this was the age of synodality and open conversation.
If being asked to resign is the same thing as being fired, why is being asked not to celebrate Mass in Tyler not the same thing as being banned?
For anyone's future reference, here's a nice article on the bishop in the secular media: https://redstate.com/mccabe/2024/03/30/the-redstate-interview-sacked-bishop-strickland-says-we-must-speak-up-stop-the-insanity-n2172098