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 o…
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 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.