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…
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.
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.