I hope people who think Bishop Strickland is a sedevacantist read your article. Anyone who has spent more than five minutes with Bishop Strickland knows he has no “cult of personality”. Anyone who follows his social media knows he never comments. And if you e ever asked him about it, you know he never *reads* anyone’s comments. I thought…
I hope people who think Bishop Strickland is a sedevacantist read your article. Anyone who has spent more than five minutes with Bishop Strickland knows he has no “cult of personality”. Anyone who follows his social media knows he never comments. And if you e ever asked him about it, you know he never *reads* anyone’s comments. I thought his responses to your questions were well-reasoned and clear.
Honest folks know he wasn’t asked to resign because of the letter he read in Rome. They also know he doesn’t deny the authority of the Pope qua Pope.
He executed his duties as Bishop of the Church of Tyler as he thought he should. Leaving the reasons for his removal unstated has left room for much speculation, and by extension much calumny and detraction (both serious sins). Rumors become fact. So now he was dismissed because of financial or administrative issues. Or because he violated the canon about inducing hatred of the pontiff. Or because he disobeyed tradiciones custodes. Or because the Catholic high school was mismanaged. Or because he denied Pope Francis being the true pope. Or because he’s a rad trad (he isn’t). Or fill in one’s favorite
And how is that fair? Or just?
If anyone states they know why he was removed from his diocese…they are being dishonest. The Pope knows. And he ain’t talkin’.
You assume facts not in evidence. Yes, the nuncio transmitted the Holy Father’s request that he resign. Are you *sure* that Bishop Strickland was given a reason? Because none is necessary; the Pope is the ultimate authority. And because I know the man, I am confident that had there been a reason that justified Bishop Strickland resigning, he would have done so. He ain’t like the bishops you see on TV.
My point is that *every* *single* commentator holding forth about why the Pope asked Bishop Strickland to resign is assuming facts not in evidence. Every instance of explanation that begins with “Anyone who has observed the firebrand bishop and his comments over the least x years can see...”, or who cites the areas to be examined in the apostolic visit, and then says, “ as a result of their investigation, the Pope...”, is engaging in detraction.
Fact is that no canonical process led to this. No canonical right of defense was recognized. And the Pope exercised his right as Supreme Pontiff to deprive a bishop of his see. Them’s facts.
*Everything* else is speculation. And Bishop Strickland has a right to his good name, just as all of us do. Being a public figure does not deprive him of that right. When the Vatican spells out the reasons for his being removed, then we will have facts. It would be out of the norm for them to ever state the reasons though; there are now four or five bishops worldwide to whom this has happened, and there still aren’t any explanations. So I’ll wait to be pleasantly surprised by the exception they make in Bishop Strickland’s case.
If you are correct, then, in order: The Pope knows; Cardinal Pierre knows what the pope told him; Bishop Strickland knows what the cardinal told him; somebody knows that these people spoke to each other and that person told Joseph.
I stand corrected; I had not yet seen Raymond Arroyo‘s interview with Bishop Strickland (I have now).
Please add any that I missed, but Bishop Strickland listed the following as the reasons for his removal given by Cardinal Pierre:
1. Did not implement the provisions of the popes motu Proprio suppressing the Latin mass.
2. there are “administrative issues“ of unknown, etiology in the diocese.
3. He lacks a “fraternal bond“ with his brother bishops. (I find that one interesting, because my bishop was the bishop of the neighboring diocese, and each of them stated that the other was a friend. I wonder what the measure of “fraternity“ is among bishops…)
Which of these three things is of a gravity to warrant depriving a bishop of his see? I think everyone should go and listen to Bishop Strickland‘s interview with Raymond Arroyo. I found bishop Strickland‘s comments very balanced, and lacking in the emotion I would have brought to (I did feel that Raymond was a bit over the top, but there are tons of reasons I don’t usually watch his show; that tendency is among them).
There is no Vatican decree spelling out the reasons for this action. There was no canonical process.
And I am not sure in what world anyone in Vatican City lives, in which they would think such an action would not the question. The decision makers still have not explained their decision (and I am clear for my part that they owe us no explanation, but an explanation of their seeming inconsistency would probably help the faithful… I don’t know…).
I don't think Strickland was removed for any one reason. it was a cumulative set of issues over the years. in the interview with Arroyo, Strickland said that Pierre read "several pages of issues/concerns" when they met to discuss his resignation. that certainly tracks with the actions, speeches and tweets of Strickland that I have seen or read about over the past few years; one of them alone would not be grounds for removal, as indeed many other bishops have done one or another (reluctance to implement Traditionis custodes, pushing Covid-19 and vaccine conspiracy theories, sidestepping or being highly critical of other bishops, administrative problems, accusing Francis of having a program of undermining the faith, etc). all of the issues together? yes, I see why Francis and his advisers thought that Strickland needed to be deposed, and I agree with the decision.
as for your claim that there was no canonical process involved, that's not quite true. the apostolic visitation of the diocese was a canonical process, in which Strickland was able to talk to the investigating bishops. Francis received the report of the visitators, and then decided to act based on the recommendation of the Dicastery for Bishops. like it or not, this is the way that the process works in the Church and has for a long time. Pope Benedict removed five bishops during his papacy in exactly the same way. I think Francis has removed three or four- not exactly sure of the numbers.
I hope people who think Bishop Strickland is a sedevacantist read your article. Anyone who has spent more than five minutes with Bishop Strickland knows he has no “cult of personality”. Anyone who follows his social media knows he never comments. And if you e ever asked him about it, you know he never *reads* anyone’s comments. I thought his responses to your questions were well-reasoned and clear.
Honest folks know he wasn’t asked to resign because of the letter he read in Rome. They also know he doesn’t deny the authority of the Pope qua Pope.
He executed his duties as Bishop of the Church of Tyler as he thought he should. Leaving the reasons for his removal unstated has left room for much speculation, and by extension much calumny and detraction (both serious sins). Rumors become fact. So now he was dismissed because of financial or administrative issues. Or because he violated the canon about inducing hatred of the pontiff. Or because he disobeyed tradiciones custodes. Or because the Catholic high school was mismanaged. Or because he denied Pope Francis being the true pope. Or because he’s a rad trad (he isn’t). Or fill in one’s favorite
And how is that fair? Or just?
If anyone states they know why he was removed from his diocese…they are being dishonest. The Pope knows. And he ain’t talkin’.
Bishop Strickland also knows, because he met with Cardinal Pierre when he was asked to resign, and they discussed the reasons for the request.
You assume facts not in evidence. Yes, the nuncio transmitted the Holy Father’s request that he resign. Are you *sure* that Bishop Strickland was given a reason? Because none is necessary; the Pope is the ultimate authority. And because I know the man, I am confident that had there been a reason that justified Bishop Strickland resigning, he would have done so. He ain’t like the bishops you see on TV.
My point is that *every* *single* commentator holding forth about why the Pope asked Bishop Strickland to resign is assuming facts not in evidence. Every instance of explanation that begins with “Anyone who has observed the firebrand bishop and his comments over the least x years can see...”, or who cites the areas to be examined in the apostolic visit, and then says, “ as a result of their investigation, the Pope...”, is engaging in detraction.
Fact is that no canonical process led to this. No canonical right of defense was recognized. And the Pope exercised his right as Supreme Pontiff to deprive a bishop of his see. Them’s facts.
*Everything* else is speculation. And Bishop Strickland has a right to his good name, just as all of us do. Being a public figure does not deprive him of that right. When the Vatican spells out the reasons for his being removed, then we will have facts. It would be out of the norm for them to ever state the reasons though; there are now four or five bishops worldwide to whom this has happened, and there still aren’t any explanations. So I’ll wait to be pleasantly surprised by the exception they make in Bishop Strickland’s case.
yes, I'm quite sure; Strickland said what I communicated above in an interview with EWTN's Raymond Arroyo.
If you are correct, then, in order: The Pope knows; Cardinal Pierre knows what the pope told him; Bishop Strickland knows what the cardinal told him; somebody knows that these people spoke to each other and that person told Joseph.
actually, the one who knows about the discussion with Pierre (Strickland) told Raymond Arroyo of EWTN in an interview, to which I listened.
I stand corrected; I had not yet seen Raymond Arroyo‘s interview with Bishop Strickland (I have now).
Please add any that I missed, but Bishop Strickland listed the following as the reasons for his removal given by Cardinal Pierre:
1. Did not implement the provisions of the popes motu Proprio suppressing the Latin mass.
2. there are “administrative issues“ of unknown, etiology in the diocese.
3. He lacks a “fraternal bond“ with his brother bishops. (I find that one interesting, because my bishop was the bishop of the neighboring diocese, and each of them stated that the other was a friend. I wonder what the measure of “fraternity“ is among bishops…)
Which of these three things is of a gravity to warrant depriving a bishop of his see? I think everyone should go and listen to Bishop Strickland‘s interview with Raymond Arroyo. I found bishop Strickland‘s comments very balanced, and lacking in the emotion I would have brought to (I did feel that Raymond was a bit over the top, but there are tons of reasons I don’t usually watch his show; that tendency is among them).
There is no Vatican decree spelling out the reasons for this action. There was no canonical process.
And I am not sure in what world anyone in Vatican City lives, in which they would think such an action would not the question. The decision makers still have not explained their decision (and I am clear for my part that they owe us no explanation, but an explanation of their seeming inconsistency would probably help the faithful… I don’t know…).
I’m open to hearing what I’ve missed, if anyone.
I don't think Strickland was removed for any one reason. it was a cumulative set of issues over the years. in the interview with Arroyo, Strickland said that Pierre read "several pages of issues/concerns" when they met to discuss his resignation. that certainly tracks with the actions, speeches and tweets of Strickland that I have seen or read about over the past few years; one of them alone would not be grounds for removal, as indeed many other bishops have done one or another (reluctance to implement Traditionis custodes, pushing Covid-19 and vaccine conspiracy theories, sidestepping or being highly critical of other bishops, administrative problems, accusing Francis of having a program of undermining the faith, etc). all of the issues together? yes, I see why Francis and his advisers thought that Strickland needed to be deposed, and I agree with the decision.
as for your claim that there was no canonical process involved, that's not quite true. the apostolic visitation of the diocese was a canonical process, in which Strickland was able to talk to the investigating bishops. Francis received the report of the visitators, and then decided to act based on the recommendation of the Dicastery for Bishops. like it or not, this is the way that the process works in the Church and has for a long time. Pope Benedict removed five bishops during his papacy in exactly the same way. I think Francis has removed three or four- not exactly sure of the numbers.