1000% yes, including this on a coffee mug! I’d love to enjoy my morning coffee in a coffee mug with that quote on it. It’d also be great on a refrigerator magnet!!!
“He encouraged Catholic Democrats to “repent of your support of that party and its platform or face the fires of hell...There will be 60 million aborted babies standing at the gates of heaven barring your Democrat entrance.””
And: “In June 2023, [Father] Altman gave a public speech in which he said Pope Francis was an antipope and not the true pope of the Catholic Church.”
Most people don't like to hear the real truth - if you vote for any politician in the US who is in the Democrat party you are voting for someone supports abortion on demand up until birth. And it does not matter what they say on the campaign trial, this is what they vote for time and again with no compromises. So your vote for them makes you complicit.
We need more priests like Fr Altman willing to "speak truth to power" in the progressive lingo. Or more theologically "like a man crying out in the desert (of this cultural age) - Repent!"
This reminds me to re-read St Basil's sermon to the rich. It is unsettling and I need to be unsettled. I think that very few people indeed would be willing to read it as addressed "to me" and as a list of things (wholly unrelated to party politics) in which I am unthinkingly, habitually complicit. https://bekkos.wordpress.com/st-basils-sermon-to-the-rich/
Yeah man, that guy is a whack job. I get that people think he’s maybe prophesying but the dude just comes off as a narcissist to me. I don’t know. Hope everything turns out okay in the end for him, but that said, probably wouldn’t hurt him to just pray and sacrifice and keep his mouth shut.
Excellent article Piller. Objective on a burning issue that illicit strong passions on both sides. You just let the people, and Bishop Strickland, have their say. This is why I still subscribe even though I sometimes disagree strongly with some articles.
I'm afraid the hilarious bit about Fr. Altman is going to detract from an otherwise very solid and informative article, including the parts from Bishop Strickland.
I think a lot of people (clearly falsely, some intentionally so) saying he was becoming a sede because of the "usurper" letter spooked a lot of the Papal Court into making clear Strickland was not deposed from office over anything he believed or said.
I disagree. The intersection of Church, politics, culture war, and online-ness is usually a place where people take themselves far too seriously. (Looking at you, guy in mirror.) I thought it was a needed bit of levity in an article about a subject that has gotten online Catholics very het up.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I took it that you asked Fr. Altman if he would comment for this piece, and he said, "no, no..." etc., but then you quoted what he said after the "no" anyway. Did I misunderstand? I will admit I am not a journalist, but that part of your article didn't sit right with me.
Oh sure, I identified myself as a journalist and asked him a question. It is entirely ethical and normal to report his response to that question, as I’ve done.
Rome very much does not want to say he was deposed for criticizing the pope.
I think in the end Francis is like Trump: he listens to the last voice in the room. Someone made sure they were the last, convinced him to do it, then they had to find a reason.
Searching for a reason with that style of leader is often a fools errand, even if there are grounds for it
Not saying you are wrong, but I think a better tact might be to say If you become a celebrity for being a Catholic Figure, you need to develop a serious habit of mortification and get spiritual direction. Because that first step is a doozy.
I’m guessing it was a coincidence, but directly under the Fr. Altman quote was the big “leave a comment” button. 😂 How can we not, right?
The only question I wish you would have asked Bishop Strickland was if indeed he could have attended the meeting, why did he choose not to but instead pray outside? It would be one thing if he couldn’t attend, but to choose not to attend but still show up outside seems to me like attention-seeking. It sounds like Bishop Strickland is a man with a good heart but some of this stunt-y type stuff undermines the sincerity. And the presence of Altman anywhere is a huge red flag although I’m assuming he may not have been invited but just showed up. That being said, a call to pray for our bishops is always appropriate.
It is imprudent to have a cult of personality on social media, because it is ipso facto a near occasion of sin; it is not an accident, this is how social media is deliberately designed.
How shall I know whether I have a cult of personality: a simple test case: If people start paying attention to things that I say because of who said them, rather than objectively on the merits of the things themselves. This is a danger to me because of vanity (I do not think it is necessary to go into depth on that) and because of the next-door temptation to activism (see The Soul of the Apostolate, etc; anything that has a visible impact is an excellent way for the enemy to draw me away from a life of faith and prayer which is frequently apparently completely fruitless), and it is a danger to them because what if I am wrong? Perhaps they have come to trust me because I know a lot about theology and they slide into assuming that I also know a lot about which is the most reliable brand of used minivan to buy, or, vice versa (it will usually be two subjects that seem more closely aligned, but I can easily give instances in which it is not.) Perhaps I am wrong sometimes even in the area where I seem to know a lot; or, perhaps I am just good at sounding very sure of myself; or, perhaps I have very solid pragmatic experiential observations that are well grounded in reality, and so they also trust my theories (which happen to be wrong because of one wrong assumption; I think the clearest example is Zen Buddhists who rule out the existence of God and therefore cannot solve the mystery of who is *doing* the spring cleaning (perhaps not even seeing it as a whodunnit?) even though they have very reliably observed that spring cleaning *happens*); or, perhaps I am well versed in theoretical knowledge but give terrible pragmatic advice. In short, you, my readers, are fools to have read this far, but I am a greater fool to post comments at all.
Please continue to comment. I am one of the least practical people around, but with lots of theoretical knowledge and experiences. You are practical, and your way of looking at the world really helps me see things better.
I appreciate the ordering in this article. Also, obsessively following all the Bishop Strickland tales, because it’s wild to me that everyone knows about Tyler nowadays.
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.
New Pillar merch: "No. No. And you know why. We’re done. We’re done. JD, we’re done."
Was *just* going to type that.
The people have spoken! We demand new merch! :)
1000% yes, including this on a coffee mug! I’d love to enjoy my morning coffee in a coffee mug with that quote on it. It’d also be great on a refrigerator magnet!!!
The quote was worth the subscription fee for this year. This comment is worth the fee for next year.
I just texted JD the same thing!!!!! Hahaha
I died when I read that!
Pillar reader Father James Altman...
I want some merch with a list of top Pillar readers. I'd pay good money for that.
Mike E from Breaking Bad:
“You are done. You are DONE!”
I'm not into merch, but I would buy this.
I’m in!
The inclusion of this quote was 👌
I'm guessing Fr. Altman wasn't at the bar with you guys last night.
JD should have had a "JD is a horrible person" shirt with him and offered it to Fr. Altman.
Second favorite, after Fr. Altman:
“He’s a very holy and very good priest, and I don’t know why, but this just seems to annoy the hierarchy.”
And the statue of Saint Anne and Little Mary.
Just looked up Fr. Altman on Wikipedia and WOW.
“He encouraged Catholic Democrats to “repent of your support of that party and its platform or face the fires of hell...There will be 60 million aborted babies standing at the gates of heaven barring your Democrat entrance.””
And: “In June 2023, [Father] Altman gave a public speech in which he said Pope Francis was an antipope and not the true pope of the Catholic Church.”
Lord, have mercy on Father Altman, and on all of us...
Thank you. I was wondering.
Most people don't like to hear the real truth - if you vote for any politician in the US who is in the Democrat party you are voting for someone supports abortion on demand up until birth. And it does not matter what they say on the campaign trial, this is what they vote for time and again with no compromises. So your vote for them makes you complicit.
We need more priests like Fr Altman willing to "speak truth to power" in the progressive lingo. Or more theologically "like a man crying out in the desert (of this cultural age) - Repent!"
> Most people don't like to hear the real truth
This reminds me to re-read St Basil's sermon to the rich. It is unsettling and I need to be unsettled. I think that very few people indeed would be willing to read it as addressed "to me" and as a list of things (wholly unrelated to party politics) in which I am unthinkingly, habitually complicit. https://bekkos.wordpress.com/st-basils-sermon-to-the-rich/
Thank you for this link. I need to read it too.
Yeah man, that guy is a whack job. I get that people think he’s maybe prophesying but the dude just comes off as a narcissist to me. I don’t know. Hope everything turns out okay in the end for him, but that said, probably wouldn’t hurt him to just pray and sacrifice and keep his mouth shut.
Excellent article Piller. Objective on a burning issue that illicit strong passions on both sides. You just let the people, and Bishop Strickland, have their say. This is why I still subscribe even though I sometimes disagree strongly with some articles.
I'm afraid the hilarious bit about Fr. Altman is going to detract from an otherwise very solid and informative article, including the parts from Bishop Strickland.
I think a lot of people (clearly falsely, some intentionally so) saying he was becoming a sede because of the "usurper" letter spooked a lot of the Papal Court into making clear Strickland was not deposed from office over anything he believed or said.
I disagree. The intersection of Church, politics, culture war, and online-ness is usually a place where people take themselves far too seriously. (Looking at you, guy in mirror.) I thought it was a needed bit of levity in an article about a subject that has gotten online Catholics very het up.
I considered that, but I decided I’d just run it as it happened. I wanted to capture the cross-section of people at the event.
This is good for the historical record.
It’s good for everything. It made me laugh, which is no small thing in these dark times. -Fr Wilson
Just curious, does "no, no" not mean "no" to you?
What do you mean?
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I took it that you asked Fr. Altman if he would comment for this piece, and he said, "no, no..." etc., but then you quoted what he said after the "no" anyway. Did I misunderstand? I will admit I am not a journalist, but that part of your article didn't sit right with me.
Oh sure, I identified myself as a journalist and asked him a question. It is entirely ethical and normal to report his response to that question, as I’ve done.
Until they make very clear why he was deposed, there's no reason to think it wasn't for what he believed or said.
Rome very much does not want to say he was deposed for criticizing the pope.
I think in the end Francis is like Trump: he listens to the last voice in the room. Someone made sure they were the last, convinced him to do it, then they had to find a reason.
Searching for a reason with that style of leader is often a fools errand, even if there are grounds for it
I am convinced that it’s never good to treat a living Catholic figure as a celebrity.
Not saying you are wrong, but I think a better tact might be to say If you become a celebrity for being a Catholic Figure, you need to develop a serious habit of mortification and get spiritual direction. Because that first step is a doozy.
Absolutely, this too!
I kinda wanna get interviewed just to get a good JD slam in — in hopes of getting my quote on a t-shirt. Unfortunately I’m not famous enough. 😜
I'm most worried about Sister Dede. That giant pink poodle looming behind her is nightmare fuel.
FiFigate :-D
It was there last year, too, I remember reading. Strange!
I’m guessing it was a coincidence, but directly under the Fr. Altman quote was the big “leave a comment” button. 😂 How can we not, right?
The only question I wish you would have asked Bishop Strickland was if indeed he could have attended the meeting, why did he choose not to but instead pray outside? It would be one thing if he couldn’t attend, but to choose not to attend but still show up outside seems to me like attention-seeking. It sounds like Bishop Strickland is a man with a good heart but some of this stunt-y type stuff undermines the sincerity. And the presence of Altman anywhere is a huge red flag although I’m assuming he may not have been invited but just showed up. That being said, a call to pray for our bishops is always appropriate.
My understanding is that Pierre asked him not to attend.
Well that would explain it then! Thanks!
It is imprudent to have a cult of personality on social media, because it is ipso facto a near occasion of sin; it is not an accident, this is how social media is deliberately designed.
How shall I know whether I have a cult of personality: a simple test case: If people start paying attention to things that I say because of who said them, rather than objectively on the merits of the things themselves. This is a danger to me because of vanity (I do not think it is necessary to go into depth on that) and because of the next-door temptation to activism (see The Soul of the Apostolate, etc; anything that has a visible impact is an excellent way for the enemy to draw me away from a life of faith and prayer which is frequently apparently completely fruitless), and it is a danger to them because what if I am wrong? Perhaps they have come to trust me because I know a lot about theology and they slide into assuming that I also know a lot about which is the most reliable brand of used minivan to buy, or, vice versa (it will usually be two subjects that seem more closely aligned, but I can easily give instances in which it is not.) Perhaps I am wrong sometimes even in the area where I seem to know a lot; or, perhaps I am just good at sounding very sure of myself; or, perhaps I have very solid pragmatic experiential observations that are well grounded in reality, and so they also trust my theories (which happen to be wrong because of one wrong assumption; I think the clearest example is Zen Buddhists who rule out the existence of God and therefore cannot solve the mystery of who is *doing* the spring cleaning (perhaps not even seeing it as a whodunnit?) even though they have very reliably observed that spring cleaning *happens*); or, perhaps I am well versed in theoretical knowledge but give terrible pragmatic advice. In short, you, my readers, are fools to have read this far, but I am a greater fool to post comments at all.
I always enjoy your comments, they are well written and remind me to dig deeper into the interior life
Absolutely. I hope to hit pithy when I comment. Bridget is always worth the minute to read.
Please continue to comment. I am one of the least practical people around, but with lots of theoretical knowledge and experiences. You are practical, and your way of looking at the world really helps me see things better.
Love this. I'm going to pray the litany of humility after the Rosary this evening.
I appreciate the ordering in this article. Also, obsessively following all the Bishop Strickland tales, because it’s wild to me that everyone knows about Tyler nowadays.
Does this imply Father Altman is a Pillar Reader?
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.
I’m so mad I already bought Pillar merch this year because now I want Pillar merch with Fr Altmans quote on it...
Ouch and double ouch for the Fr. Altman reply. Uh-uh.