You assume facts not in evidence. Yes, the nuncio transmitted the Holy FatherтАЩs 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 ainтАЩt 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 тАЬAnyone who has observed the firebrand bishop and his comments over the least x years can see...тАЭ, or who cites the areas to be examined in the apostolic visit, and then says, тАЬ as a result of their investigation, the Pope...тАЭ, 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. ThemтАЩs 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 arenтАЩt any explanations. So IтАЩll wait to be pleasantly surprised by the exception they make in Bishop StricklandтАЩs 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 ArroyoтАШs 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 тАЬadministrative issuesтАЬ of unknown, etiology in the diocese.
3. He lacks a тАЬfraternal bondтАЬ 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 тАЬfraternityтАЬ is among bishopsтАж)
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 StricklandтАШs interview with Raymond Arroyo. I found bishop StricklandтАШs 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 donтАЩt 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 faithfulтАж I donтАЩt knowтАж).
IтАЩm open to hearing what IтАЩve 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.
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 FatherтАЩs 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 ainтАЩt 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 тАЬAnyone who has observed the firebrand bishop and his comments over the least x years can see...тАЭ, or who cites the areas to be examined in the apostolic visit, and then says, тАЬ as a result of their investigation, the Pope...тАЭ, 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. ThemтАЩs 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 arenтАЩt any explanations. So IтАЩll wait to be pleasantly surprised by the exception they make in Bishop StricklandтАЩs 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 ArroyoтАШs 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 тАЬadministrative issuesтАЬ of unknown, etiology in the diocese.
3. He lacks a тАЬfraternal bondтАЬ 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 тАЬfraternityтАЬ is among bishopsтАж)
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 StricklandтАШs interview with Raymond Arroyo. I found bishop StricklandтАШs 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 donтАЩt 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 faithfulтАж I donтАЩt knowтАж).
IтАЩm open to hearing what IтАЩve 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.