The Catholic world is in an uproar over the ouster of a bishop with an outsized public profile that he acquired mostly through social media.
If you’re Catholic and you pay attention to these things, you’ll probably have guessed that I am talking about Bishop Joseph Strickland, olim of Tyler, Texas, a physically gargantuan diocese cobbled from parts of three other Texan jurisdictions in the mid-1980s with a Catholic head count that is a miniscule fraction of the large general population.
The very short version of a very sad story is that Strickland said or repeated lots of very nasty things about Pope Francis, which prompted a visit from other bishops at the pope’s behest who were tasked with seeing how Strickland was doing in his job. After which Francis invited Strickland to resign and then relieved him of his see when Strickland refused the invitation to go quietly.
Strickland didn’t only say one unpleasant thing, either. He used social media—mostly The Thing That Used To Be Twitter—to share some awfully ill-tempered and frankly hare-brained stuff about Pope Francis.
For example, Strickland applauded and shared media describing Pope Francis as a “diabolically disoriented clown”.
Strickland also mixed with unsavory lunatics beyond the fringe, who have doubted and even publicly denied Francis’s legitimacy. “I believe Pope Francis is the pope,” Strickland wrote after a particularly egregious contretemps, “but it is time for me to say that I reject his program of undermining the deposit of faith.”
That’s not much of a walk-back, if we are being perfectly frank.
Even if it were just for that, there would be few among the sane who couldn’t finally wrap their heads around the idea that it would be better for everyone—including Joe Strickland—if Strickland weren’t the Bishop of Tyler, Texas, anymore, no matter what they think of Francis.
That’s pretty much the sum of what we know for certain about the Strickland business, at least from official channels.
And that is a problem.
Use of an extraordinary power—in this case, the power to depose bishops—ought to be both sparing and candidly motivated. One ought to use an extraordinary power only when it is really necessary. When one uses an extraordinary power, one ought to explain as fully as possible how and why one is using it. Pope Francis has not done that.
Transparency: Who stands to lose the most?
The inveterate Francis-haters and stalwart partisans of the soi-disant resistance were always going to reject any motivation or justification the pope and the Vatican proffered for the ouster of their darling Strickland. That’s all the more reason for the pope and the Vatican to do it right and to let themselves be seen to be doing it right.
That’s not to say the pope and the Vatican should have spilt all the tea there may have been to spill on Strickland. But it is to say they ought to have published a thorough summary of the investigation Pope Francis ordered back in June of this year.
It shouldn’t have been too hard to put together a statement explaining–in words—that Strickland’s increasingly strident and frankly erratic online behavior, coupled with several complaints from different quarters of his diocese over many years, led Rome to believe that a close review of his governance was in order, and that the review found X, Y, Z, all serious problems for which Strickland had neither adequate explanation nor any apparent willingness to make amendment.
The statement could have rehearsed specific efforts to remonstrate with Strickland, to bring him around, to see that it was time for him to retire.
Instead, we heard from the metropolitan archbishop of Galveston-Houston, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, who said that a pair of trusty prelates conducted “an exhaustive inquiry into all aspects” of Strickland’s leadership, after which “the recommendation was made to the Holy Father that the continuation in office of Bishop Strickland was not feasible.”
The statement from Cardinal DiNardo went on to say that the Vatican types in the Dicastery for Bishops kicked ideas around for several months in consultation with Pope Francis, and eventually decided to ask for Strickland’s resignation, which they did on November 9th.
Strickland refused to resign. Pope Francis removed him.
Fine.
How two guys should have completed, in a short time, an exhaustive review of one man’s decade in office, well, never mind. The point is that any such fact-finding mission as a so-called Apostolic Visitation—one of the oldest investigative tools in the papal toolbox—will find some peg on which to hang a fellow.
This time, it was really important to say—for the record and officially—which peg, or at least which rack.
Folks reasonably wonder why it is that a criminal pervert like Gustavo Zanchetta got a sinecure in the Vatican after it became impossible for Francis to ignore complaints about his fast and loose financial management and handsy ways with seminarians, while a guy like Strickland gets the boot.
It just isn’t enough—not in the real world—to say that Zanchetta agreed to go quietly, while Strickland dared the pope to fire him.
Missed opportunity
As long as we are being perfectly frank, there is much more about Pope Francis’s own governance that really does need straightening out. Francis is arguably the one bishop in the world with the most to lose from transparency in the practice of governance.
From his reserved and highly selective application of Vos estis lux mundi—that’s his paper reform of investigative and prosecutorial procedure for cases of abuse and coverup in the Church—to his various occultations and rehabilitations of criminal perverts and their abettors, his manhandling of the Vatican City justice system in the London business and his ersatz application of “healthy decentralization” frequently indistinguishable from ruthless autocracy, Francis has much to explain.
Pope Francis could have used the Strickland affair to let the faithful and the bishops see “synodality” in action, but he didn’t.
He could have convened an actual synod of bishops to hear a brief against Strickland, and summoned Strickland to answer for himself before the synod. Historically, synods have been bodies with the power to discipline bishops. If a bishop didn’t like the treatment that he got from a synod—if he thought it unfair or unjust—he could appeal to the pope.
The longer one looks at what did and did not happen in the Strickland case, the more starkly does it begin to appear that Pope Francis’s main concern was to send a message, pour encourager les autres.
The “X” Factor
Bishop Joseph Strickland, olim of Tyler, Texas, likely isn’t a schismatic or a heretic. He may very well be a living saint, but he has certainly given significant evidence of a relationship with reality that is not perfectly straightforward.
It’s tough to say whether Strickland became erratic after getting his ring and his mitre—which he did from Cardinal DiNardo in late 2012, on orders from Pope Benedict XVI—or whether his troubled relationship with the world as it is began many years ago and perhaps even before he ever considered the Catholic priesthood.
Close your eyes for just ten seconds and imagine a world in which no such thing as Twitter ever existed.
Are you back and reading again?
Now answer this: In the fantasy world without The Thing That Used To Be Called Twitter, would you even know who Joseph Strickland is?
Would Pope Francis know who he is?
It happens that Twitter—er … X—is a thing and so is the Diocese of Tyler, Texas, and so are the Catholics and others on every side of this ugliness.
The pope really can depose bishops. Catholics settled that question a long time ago.
Whether responsible exercise of power as currently organized in the Church is morally possible, well, that is another question.
It is one the very real crisis of confidence epitomized by l’Affaire Strickland presses upon the faithful with palpable urgency.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I suspect Bishop Strickland will fare much better at his particular judgment than he did with the Apostolic Visit.
Agreed. Thank you. Short and to the point.
The Apostolic Visit was a formality by formless functionaries. Since Bishop Strickland found his voice, especially at meetings of Bishops, he was a marked man. It is the company men meeting in Baltimore that were relieved when Bishop Strickland was “relieved.”
Bishop Strickland was offered up by his “brother bishops” to please this pontificate and themselves. Bishop Strickland was the only member of the Texas Conference that refused to cozy up to Democrats and RINOs in Austin. [Puerto Rico’s Bishop Torres was also sacrificed by his fraternal order to please this pontificate and their petty agendas.]
Episcopal betrayal is pathetic, like Altieri’s ignorant and obnoxious obloquy. Y’all ain’t fit to lick Strickland’s boots!
Superb, God’s Fool.
And on the very date of the byline of this article, the bishops, now more sensible, voted overwhelmingly to recognize abortion as the primary moral concern of today.
A few years ago, under the influence of McElroy, they were reluctant to do so. I wonder if Alteri can close his eyes and imagine how much more mass slaughter of the unborn would exist in America and the world had not Bishop Strickland apoken up forcefully for the unborn at that time preserving a positve and morally sane vote.
So…Mr. Altieri is now somehow not pro-life? Really? Good grief.
Abortions peaked in Texas at about 90,000 per year. Now by God’s grace and help from Bishop Strickland’s very imperfect leadership, they are zero, except those that go to states like Pennsylvania.
How is it going in Italy? Mr. Altieri could put down his pro-life pen and hit the streets. He could practice Synodaling by inviting Bishop Strickland, since the Pope has so graciously “relieved” him of his duties in Tyler. Half of Rome will likely join just to get out of work! Try not to be disappointed if no one from the Vatican has time. Long before Bishop Strickland, Bishop (now Cardinal!) Feral was always unavailable to help when he was in the Legionaries, under McCarrick, or in charge of Dallas. Now he must be even more busy…[As an aside, I wonder if he knew Fr. Tim Kelly of Tyler, TX back in Ireland?]
“How is it going in Italy?”
Mr. Altieri teaches at a Catholic HS in Conn., where he and his family have lived for the past two years. So…
While we’re pursuing this curious line of thought, I’ll admit that I’ve lived in Oregon sine 1991. Oregon, of course, is one of my foremost Culture of Death states in the country. Feel free to blame me for that. And be sure to lambast Archbishop Sample as well.
Oh come on Mr. Olson. I have great respect for you. I didn’t imply otherwise. I attempted a rebuke to his silly manner of putting down Strickland.
I wasn’t saying that your comment was aimed at me, as it obviously wasn’t. My point is that if you are going to use that sort of logic in going after Altieri, then it follows that folks like myself should also be criticized.
The Catholic world is in an uproar over the lambasting of a HS teacher with an outsized public profile that he acquired mostly through moonlighting as a reporter.
A simple yet quite insightful thought experiment offered to Altieri that also suggests something else as well. The lives that Bishop Strickland’s actions may have saved by giving more courage to his fellow bishops to cast appropriate votes and stay strong on their pro-life position and faithfully preach it may have likely triggered certain forces both near and far to set their sites on eventually “punishing” Bishop Strickland for what they would perceive as actions too bold for the Church they have been molding in their own more worldly image.
Bishop Rob Mutsaerts, auxiliary bishop of s-Hertogenbosch (Den Bosch) in the Netherlands, is as outspoken as he is a loyal defender of traditional Church doctrine. After asking hard questions about the Synod on Synodality as the Rome meeting was drawing to its close, he again posted vigorous comments on his personal blog, Paarse Pepers, this time on Bishop Joseph Strickland’s recent dismissal as bishop of Tyler, Texas. He called it a “strange story” and an instance of “drastic measures” being taken by Rome against a “humble, balanced, faithful, and law-abiding” pastor of the Church.
Bishop Mutsaerts was particularly indignant about the absence of canonical recourse open to his brother bishop: this is not the first time, he notes, that Pope Frances has imposed such a sanction personally, as the highest authority in the Church, thereby depriving its recipient of any kind of “appeal of defense.”
“These are methods we might expect to see in North Korea, or Rome in the days of Nero,” he scathingly remarked.
What a lack of charity in your evaluation of Bishop Strickland. I think you posted this to the wrong site and should submit it to the rag, America magazine instead.
You’re making a name for yourself doing exactly what you accuse Bishop Strickland of doing…insane.
I agree with you, Jeremy.
Jeremy, you are absolutely correct. God bless a true Bishop, Bishop Joseph Strickland.
Or on that protestant rag – The National Reporter
Just what, exactly, did the author say that is factually inaccurate? The ex-bishop of Tyler is a vocal dissident, not unlike Frs. Charles Curran and Hans Kung or a prior generation.
Dissident but orthodox. The other dissidents you mention were heterodox. Please, be careful.
The author completely avoided the heart of this matter and that is the subject matter and reasoning for Bishop Stricklands disagreement with the Pope. He focuses on the fact that he used social media as a means to dissent without considering the basis for it. Under this theory no criticism by anyone by any means is to be tolerated. Hopefully that is not truly the state of our Church.
“Under this theory no criticism by anyone by any means is to be tolerated.”
You might want to read a bit more that CWR has published over the past decade. I’ve written essays critical of Pope Francis going back to October 2013. But there are certain lines to be avoided and proper ways to proffer criticism, even very strong criticism.
I don’t know much about what the official Church teaching on where the lines are on how to criticize, but I have my own lines, and I’d say Strickland has stepped over them. But so has the Pope. We’ve been forgiving and moving on for over a decade.
I have no idea how to draw lines on proper ways to criticize such that Strickland stepped well over them, and the Pope didn’t. If you do, please explain them.
Carl, the hour is late and our situation is dire. I don’t think we can afford to sandbag the people who don’t fight the “proper” way. Just like the politician Donald Trump was/is improper but the kind of tough person America needed/needs, so are many people that we will need to fight the corruption/stand up for what is right.
If we refuse to join/support anybody who does not fight the “proper” way, we will have…….nobody on our side who fights. Seriously. That’s a flaw of our generation.
Besides, you know the corrupt establishment (religion/government) will always promote as “proper” the methods that have no chance of ever changing anything. Think of it as a rigged game. You either ignore the “rules” or you don’t play. If you choose to play and play by their rules….you lose!
So, I barely even criticize anybody on our side who chooses to take a stand on important matters. Do they do everything the way I would? No. Does it matter? In the big scheme of things, probably not.
I think we should jettison (not all, but a lot of) what we have been taught about what is “proper” and start paying more attention to what works. I don’t think we have a choice.
Exactly! There is a way to express an opinion without blatantly insulting and mocking your boss. I highly recommend going to listen to Fr. Chad Ripperger’s talk on youtube about this and how it should be no surprise to any of us.
Cancel Culture by any other name…At this point the wheat and the cockles are in full head, and the harvest is, I think very near.
I think the truth should always be spoken with charity and that is difficult to do if we write articles or say things with out spending a quiet moment with the creator. I’m looking to my own faults first and looking for those truths. Then I will better love others I hope.
I think you see the real truth here.
He is a dissident from heterodoxy who is living up to the vows of his priestly ordination.
So a pro-lifer is just like a pro-abort? Did you ever hear of the fallacy of the undistributed middle? Once you do, you’ll be more careful about “just likes”.
Agree 100%. I can’t believe John Jepp has linked this inaccurate and biased article which -distorts the truth about who B Strickland is and what he is defending (the Deposit of faith left by Jesus himself). With writers like this the Church surely continues this downward slope. The Bergoglian tyranny is so clear, so constant and so evident that not even so called ‘Catholic’ writers can distort the truth of what this antipope is knowingly doing-persecuting the priestess who defend and are loyal to the ONE, TRUE, Catholic, apostolic FAITH. We will all need yo give an account for our actions and failure to act.
Another solid observation. Bishop Fisher would not fare well with this fellow.
INDEED!!!! Thank you for the post..there are no more words that could bullseye your analysis.
Totally agree…This is not a charitable article, and I am now looking at this site unfavorably. Will watch what else is posted – carefully.
Thank you. Unfortunately, it’s clear the author of this article is part of the problem the body of Christ is being wounded by. 2000 years of clear theology to this mess and other Bishops who remain silent or worse – embrace this radical agenda. Truly troubling times we are in.
100 agreed 👍
Agree totally. A horribly biased evaluation of a truly brave and holy bishop. The sad part is that there are so few bishops with his commitment to the Daith.
In a situation as serious as this, transparency is vital to resolution of the controversy. Yet, Francis chooses the be seen as the “dictator” of which he is already accused.
I do not think Francis can accept criticism; it is really that simple.
Pray for Strickland; he is without an income. Pray for Francis, that he may lose some level of arrogance.
If this is how you treat Bishop Strickland for the audacity of using X to expose a corrupt pope, I can’t imagine what you’d do (have already done?) to Archbishop Vigano.
When a phrase like ‘hare brained’ is used to describe Bp. Strickland, the author loses all credibility.
I agree Jim! The author also neglected to comment on the marked increase in priestly vocations in Bishop Strickland’s diocese.
let us recall the reputed perverted cardinal who got Bishop Sheen removed from the most popular TV show in the USA.
May God bless Bishop Strickland who slowly evolved into a champion for the Faith. Wish we had more men of courage like him.
PRAY FOR THE CONVERSION OF PF.
The writer is straining for balance in this article, but it is obvious what is going on. The Pope removed a bishop who tweeted mean things about him, but is otherwise perfectly orthodox. Meanwhile, he warmly embraces bishops who openly reject settled Church teaching. There is no mystery why the Pope is not transparent: He doesn’t want people to know the petty and base motives that are behind the removal.
Bishop Strickland has emerged as a hero to many Catholics who find it difficult to accept Pope Francis’s modernization of the timeless truths of the Catholic Faith. They see, in Pope Francis’s teachings, what the Church, under the papacy of Saint Pius X, condemned as the heresy of modernism. They may not know anything about Saint Pius X’s condemnation of modernism, but they sense the wrong involved in Pope Francis’s efforts to update the timeless truths revealed to us by God Himself and to reconcile those eternal truths with the “wisdom” of the modern world. They are confused and–truth be told–dwindling in number (i.e., leaving the Church). Those who have not left the Church are looking for a hero to save the Faith, and no one is stepping up except Bishop Strickland.
A recent event connected with the Synod on Synodality illustrates this point. A canonical “dubia” was sent to Pope Francis by five very brave and lonely Cardinals (only five of the College of Cardinals’ current two-hundred and forty-two members). Here’s one of the questions that the dubia asked the pope to answer: “… whether in the Church Divine Revelation should be reinterpreted according to the cultural changes of our time and according to the new anthropological vision that these changes promote; or whether Divine Revelation is binding forever, immutable and therefore not to be contradicted.” Why only 5 out of 232?
From all that has been going on in the Catholic Church in recent years, culminating in the current over-the-top “woke”-globalist-modernist agenda of Pope Francis, I find myself approaching the conclusion that the Catholic Christianity into which I was baptized eighty-five years ago is about to self-destruct in Pope Francis’s ill-begotten Synod on Synodality—in his current complex efforts to turn the Catholic Church into a strange new “globalist-modernist-synodality” type of Church in which the timeless truths of the Catholic Faith are ignored—replaced by times-conscious, trendy untruths, created in the chaos of fickle human social, political, and religious preferences—turning God into an image and likeness of Us!
I, like a dwindling number of other Catholics, am looking for a hero. If not Bishop Strickland, who? Pope Francis? Who??
Jesus.
At least, if you listen to Bishop Strickland, that’s who you should go to.
This rate of episcopal bad behavior isn’t new. When Jesus hand-picked the bishops, 1 was a traitor, 1 was a denier, all of them were cowards, and only one of those that ran away came back. If the Church was built on the moral authority of the Apostles and their successors, it would’ve disappeared about 2 millennia ago.
The priests and bishops were meant to shepherd us, but they were never meant to be enough to get us to heaven. The lack of good guidance from them is not enough to prevent us either. We’re not in a club of likeminded people, we’re members of the Body of Christ, and it’s a resurrected body that cannot be destroyed.
“We’re not in a club of likeminded people, we’re members of the Body of Christ, and it’s a resurrected body that cannot be destroyed.
Deep, very deep Amanda!
Raymond, you have described this situation perfectly..Bishop Strickland, Hero.
Excellent commentary,and well thought out.
I’m not looking for a hero, we have one in the Trinity.
I am looking for a pope who isn’t caught in the modernist mentality. Sadly my own parish pastor doesn’t see anything wrong. “He hasn’t changed doctrine” he says (July 2023)
I had to stop my conversations about the pope to my locals. He said trust in the Holy Spirit. That is how I was able to return after a 3 year hiatus, while trying to discern what was happening.
I learned of the underbelly in the Vatican. The invasion of satanic spirits is what happened
Yet our local priests don’t get it, why?
It’s in God’s hands. All I can do is pray, pray and pray some more this devil infuse pope is gone soon, along with the cardinals who are not doing Christ’s work. They’ve become pleasure seekers
Let go, let God! The Vatican, wow so much scandal from finances, cardinals, the pope
How dare Strickland, Fr James Altman, Frank Pavone, AB Carlos Vigano and so many more awakened clergy called them out on the obvious
Do you think God has allowed a standard bearing leader of all that has been wrong for the last half century or longer to now rise to the top and to have had many moments of buffoonishness that sober minds can see through for no reason at all? It was one thing when various theologians that most Catholics never heard of were saying stupid things, but now that Catholic theological sophistry is being exposed, perhaps this is God’s plan for laying the groundwork for a counter-revolution.
We have to pray.
Edward Baker, Pope Francis has withstood the extreme tensions caused for 2000 years since St Paul’s erroneous “opinion” at 1 Cor7:25-34 on consecrated celibate marriage vowed toman in Christ and male female marriage vowed to God with the former a higher vocation.
Well said with the wisdom of an 85 year insight to the Catholic Church. A bottom line for me with almost that life long history of Catholicism is that many if not most bishops and archbishops are pusillanimous if not outright cowardly appointees to their “regal” roles. Very little spine as men and leaders. It was my naive hope that his brothers in Christ would welcome Bishop Strickland to the Baltimore Conference with open arms of solidarity and respect! Instead the Barred him from entry!!! I believe about 2000 priests have been canceled in America for daring to speak the truthful word of God. Shame on those ruthless and misguided “leaders”. They will answer to Christ for every cancelled priest as well as for their own heresy. In the words of the Rosary Novena to Save America: “Heavenly Father, please save America! We ask this in the name of Your Son, Jesus Christ.”
I agree with you, Dave.
Dave T., “Church teaching” exists on what relationship between insuring by a family member and ensuring by their helper withstands extreme tensions caused by embezzlements of ensuring procreation role gift tax-exemptions and lower insurance cost by fraud.
This “teaching” was clarified on or just after 10 June 2021 by Pope Francis in his cases of Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine other Vatican state citizens/employees’ alleged embezzlement of his procreation role gift ensuring charity donations and the Italian Parliament “Zan” antihomophobia bill unacceptable risk of fraud on his insuring his need of union of his identity as a consecrated celibate married by vows to man in Christ on the reference point of Mary as a consecrated family member in her identity-role at Lk 1:29-45 in a consecrated celibate marriage and Mt 1:24 in a consecrated male female marriage.
This reference point given by Mary was transmitted by Colin Clark in 1964 simultaneously at the Vatican Council 2 Commission on Population and the UNO Food and Agriculture Organisation and then my me as a son of Colin Clark on 31 March 2021 at the Australian Federal Circuit Court in completing the three evangelical counsels with consecrated poverty.
Actually Dave, I don’t think PF cares about what we Catholics see or know about his actions.
Well said Dave.
Would that all the bishops who support the teaching of the Catholic Church had “an outsized public profile.” Jesus never told His apostles to “sit down and shut up.”
Donna!
Bullseye and marvelously succinct!
Shy, my first reaction to your view is BINGO!
He did say get away from me Satan
Pope Francis:
“A diabolically disoriented clown” True or False?
“time for me to say that I reject his program of undermining the deposit of faith.” True or False?
Does Altieri need to read an exhaustive chronicling of all that Francis has said and done over these past 10 years to bolster the assessment of his papacy? As far as I’m concerned, Altieri has given us a hit-piece on someone who simply reflects what many Catholics think about this Pope. As for the other bishops, a feckless group of cowards, who wouldn’t speak truth to power if it gob-smacked them in the face.
As for the ongoing nonsense coming out of the papacy, we now know the Vatican approves transexuals as sponsors on Baptism. So, I ask our courageous bishops and writers like Altieri this: If transsexuals can be sponsors for Baptism, can they also be hired as teachers and principals in our Catholic schools? Can they be considered candidates for the priesthood? Could a bishop be consecrated if he is transsexual? Could there be a transsexual Pope? Now, review the statements Bishop Strickland made on Twitter.
Ditto, Deacon. Well said.
The definition of “transsexual” needs some clarification, I think. If it means a person who has emotions and thoughts regarding being the opposite sex, this is a temptation and not a sin. If it means a person who has, in the past, received hormones and surgeries to mutilate themselves into looking something like the opposite sex, this is a consequence and not a sin. If it means the person chooses to present themselves as the opposite sex, this is a manifest sin and should prevent them from being a baptismal sponsor, and from receiving baptism themselves.
Amanda, you make two assertions:
1. “If it means a person who has, in the past, received hormones and surgeries to mutilate themselves into looking something like the opposite sex, this is a consequence and not a sin.”
2. “If it means the person chooses to present themselves as the opposite sex, this is a manifest sin and should prevent them from being a baptismal sponsor, and from receiving baptism themselves.”
Please explain why one is a sin and the other is not. They are one and the same. Both are sins against nature.
Perhaps an analogous scenario may provide clarity. A man may choose to castrate himself. This is a sin. It roughly parallels point 2. That man may later be convicted of this sin by the Holy Spirit, repent of his castration, and receive God’s mercy through sacramental reconciliation. The fact that he is a eunuch (consequence of his past sin) does not mean he cannot become a Christian – and, consequently, able to serve as a godfather at baptism. This perhaps parallels point 1.
Thanks Stefan, you clarified what I was trying to say very well. There are a lot of people who regret their choices to use hormones and surgery to mutilate themselves. Given the number of young children and confused teens that this was done to, I expect there to be a lot more regret in the future, and a lot more wounded souls who need Jesus.
beautifully phrased, Amanda. I am going to keep this. Thank you.
Fully agree. Bravo!
Thank you, Deacon Peitler! Hit piece indeed. I recommend reading Bishop Gracida’s assessment of the Strickland affair. He is another hero of orthodoxy. I posted it on my blog.
You are correct regarding Bishop Strickland and the attacks on him, but earlier this year or perhaps it was at the end of last year, I read a piece on your blog by one of your associates who gushed lavish praise on Leftist pro-abortion, anti-capitalist globalist Jeffrey Sachs who made yet another false attack on the United States based on a left wing narrative that your associate also promoted.
Your blog is not to be trusted.
It’s great to see an awakened deacon. Now if the priests would become so. Not the case in Toledo, NW Ohio diocese. Our deacon is aware, but don’t have this conversation with our bishop or priests. Sadly I tried and was shut down. So I go to church, mind my business, read my Bible daily and pray for the return of an honest sacred Church
Deacon Edward, “what many Catholics think about” Pope Francis as ensuring is inseparable and qualitatively equal with ‘who many Catholics be or are with’ Pope Francis as insuring.
Deacon Edward, “think about” is a doing role. What is their corresponding been identity?
Bingo!!!
We should stop accusing Pope Francis and the Vatican of not providing the reasons for relieving Strickland of duties. The bishop of course was told of the reasons but he’s not telling his fans about them. Instead he’s enhancing the narrative that he’s a martyr of the cause of ultra conservative Catholics. Martyr? Wrong! He’s a reckless QAnon believing basher of Francis who ended a sedevacantist. From the ground zero in Tyler it’s also reported that whereas as bishop he’s supposed to unite he instead created divisions among his priests and people for his divisive political (election denialism, Covid vaccine resistance…) and doctrinal (attacks against the Pope’s orthodoxy) positions.
Well, Tom – then you’re straight up calling Strickland a liar, because he has said he wasn’t told the reasons other than what everybody has publicly seen.
Dave: Yes, I’m inclined to think of the bishop as a liar. He has lied many times caricaturing and misrepresenting the Pope in order to smear and bash the Pontiff. Just compare what the bishop said in the October 30, 2023 Rome Life Forum about the Pope’s position on abortion: Strickland wrongly accused the Pope as pro-abortion: “This usurper of Peter’s chair has counted life as nought, for he has endangered souls by proclaiming that they are justified before God as they are, with no need of repentance.”
The full address (video and transcript) is here linked below:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-strickland-catholics-alive-during-this-crisis-must-remember-they-were-born-for-this/
And compare this to what is actually the Pope’s clear and consistent teaching on abortion:
https://apnews.com/article/5137019e19c5410aa7e2c2b68f21824f
Did you read your own quote? Strickland accused the Pope, not of being pro-abortion, but of declaring that people who need repentance do not. This is not a matter of physical life, but of spiritual life, which is more important.
Tom A,
I had to go to LifeSite to closely look at the transcript. I can tell you, it was not Bishop Strickland who called the Pope, ” the usurper of Peter’s chair,” and “one who has pushed aside the true Pope and has attempted to sit on a chair that is not his.” It is not Strickland who called the Pope “pro-abortion.” Strickland was reading from a letter sent to him by a friend, therefore those quotes were his friend’s, not his.
I know it’s confusing because at some point, the article stopped using quotation marks; instead, it indented the paragraphs from the bishop’s friend’s letter.
It would have been alarming if such words were uttered by the bishop. Whereas I could take or leave Ann Barnhardt, a bishop’s words have so much weight on it. I feel it was right for him to criticize the Pope on heretical policies and practices, but would not be correct to judge him as an antipope. Whew! but that was close!
Tom A, you forgot to throw in something about Trump into your screed.
As a person of color, I don’t stand with the dethroned bishop for dismissing the concerns of people like me, telling his flock not to worry about racism. He openly supported and endorsed Fr. Altman who called for for the killing of Pope Francis and who believes that lynchings were justified.
Shayne, be very careful of your sweeping accusations. They could be damning.
Just stop with the victim card. It’s actually not even remotely about you or your alleged racial identity. Nice try, though.
Wow Tom A you sound like a left leaning liberal. I bet you support abortions and Frank Pavone being defrocked.
I do believe we are in a sedevacantist phase. I have little respect for this so called pope who slapped a baby because it cried during baptism. Maybe instead of defending, look into why he sits in a serpents chair in a serpent auditorium. The serpent represents the devil directly. Or maybe why the military removed so much gold from the tunnel underneath. Instead of judging people, look at the bigger picture. The Vatican is an ugly place in the underbelly. Maybe Fr Altman should be listened to and understand he comes from truth. After all even Jesus flipped some tables
I don’t believe you have any evidence to accuse Tom A of supporting abortion. If anything, we have the opposite, as he both supports Pope Francis and believes Pope Francis opposes abortion (“like hiring a hitman”).
The guy who slapped a baby who cried during baptism was Father Jacques Lacroix. He was 89 and was required to retire as a result.
There’s no evidence that Rome is a sede vacante. We’ve had awful Popes before. Pope Francis is a new combination of bad, and he certainly makes life very difficult, but he isn’t doing anything that some other Pope hasn’t done before.
Yes. Bishop Strickland said some nasty things about our Pope… AND, this Pope deserved much of the nasty things said about him….AND when one criticizes one’s boss, one may get fired…BUT..exactly WHO is each of us, including Bishop Strickland, working for? The Pope? Or Christ? And therein lies the rub. From cancelling our latin masses to cancelling one, single, bishop who cries out against the Pope who cancels latin masses and vast swatches of people who disagree with the Pope POLITICALLY, this Pope is walking on thin ice with the people he is supposed to help shepherd to Christ, not shepherd to a political ideology on climate, borders, and economics.Bishop Strickland has become a lightening rod for this Pope and “his” (said sarcastically) Church, instead of the Pope being a lightening rod for Jesus to spread the Word.
The Pope is NOT the Bishops’ boss.
Pauline,
Pope Francis did not cancel all Latin Masses. It seems he left it up to the bishops to decide whether they should continue on in their respective dioceses. TC seems to say it should not be included in the lineup of the Novus Ordo Masses. IOW, not to be celebrated in the parish churches, but in separate locations (such as a mission chapel, etc.?)
Pope Francis spares the former Ecclesia Dei Latin Masses from TC, i.e., those celebrated by the FSSP, ICKSP, the Norbertines, the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, the Contemplatives of St. Joseph, etc. “since the use of the ancient liturgical books was at the origin of their existence and is provided for in their constitutions.” (Source: http://www.fssp.org)
I thought Pope Francis might be considering declaring the TLM as not just the extraordinary form of the Latin Mass, but as a completely separate rite from the Novus Ordo. Okay by me, as long as he does not cancel it.
Cardinal Mueller, former head of the CDF and hardly a firebrand, has recently said that many of Pope Francis’ statements are most easily interpreted as material heresy. It would be quite the astonishing claim to say that the Pope saying things that are most easily interpreted as material heresy is a great support for the deposit of the Faith.
If namecalling/sharing namecalling were reasons to remove a bishop I should think Pope Francis would have resigned by now. After all, for him to act as if he as Pope he has the privilege to call people names, while in a brother bishop such things rate penal removal, seems like clericalism, perhaps Phariseeism.
As for mixing with unsavory fringe lunatics, the Pope has met with, praised without caveat pro-abortion policiticans and activists, as well as defending and promoting people with known involvement in sexual abuse. Again, if this is a reason for removing Strickland, the Pope should have resigned long ago.
If such things are indicative “of a relationship with reality that is not perfectly straightforward”, or of being “erratic”, then presumably the author, to be consistent, has the same opinion regarding the Pope?
I think the critique of the lack of transparency was spot on.
Altieri’s writing is often nuanced or ironic, but I didn’t see him coming down as hard on Strickland as he did on Francis. I think Altieri lobbed his most inflammatory and damning rhetoric against the pope. Altieri refers to Francis’ Vatican, following apostolic visitation, hanging Strickland not only upon a peg but also upon a “rack.” I don’t think Altieri used the word to denote an oven accessory. Rather, I saw Strickland stretched upon a medieval instrument of torture, placed there by a pope and his Vatican with penchant for denigrating traditional Catholics (like Strickland) as backward crazies or rigid pharisees lacking in charity.
Strickland’s “relationship with reality that is not perfectly straightforward” could be said about many saints who saw with the eyes of God rather than of men. St. John of the Cross was kicked out and made homeless by his own order. St. Margaret Mary was abused in her convent. St. Francis of Asissi apparently walked barefoot in the snow. Joan of Arc, accused of heresy by church and state, burned at the stake, refusing to recant her visions. Jesus too, was seen as a revolutionary and a blasphemer, sane in retrospect but insane at the time. God has been said to write straight with crooked lines, and conceivably Strickland is doing the same.
I think it’s hard to tell the truth at all, without coming down harder on Pope Francis than Bishop Strickland.
I wouldn’t call Strickland a traditionalist. He almost never celebrates the Tridentine Rite, last I heard, and didn’t learn until after he’d been a bishop. He had the charity and flexibility to protect the traditionalists in his diocese.
But perhaps I don’t see Strickland’s relation with reality as not being straightforward because in both speech and act, he has been far more straightforward than any other bishop. Most dodge the question of the Pope’s behavior entirely, the few others attempt to address it very delicately and in a roundabout way. Being willing to take the suffering that comes of doing what is right is the exact opposite of “not straightforward”, and I wouldn’t call it an example of writing straight with crooked lines. Perhaps an unusually straight line that looks crooked because of the optical illusion created by surrounding crooked lines, (which God is nevertheless using).
But I’ve been working for quite a while at thinking of the Saints as the epitome of sanity and clear-sighted living in reality (although this is rather difficult with St. Margaret Mary). Possibly I missed the imagery that is obvious for those thinking of it the other way around.
I think a traditional Catholic differs from a traditionalist. Do you? The traditional Catholic is CATHOLIC. A traditionalist may not necessarily be Catholic….
Distinctions are important. Subtle nuance can be obscure.
I’m not questioning Strickland’s Catholic bona fides, but his traditionalist bona fides. I don’t think either “traditionalist” or “traditional Catholic” apply to him.
St Joan of Arc was burned by a state-church conglomeration (the English controlling the action of many French bishops). Much as the French king turned on the Templars and had them burned.
“The very short version of a very sad story is that Strickland said or repeated lots of very nasty things about Pope Francis…” Well now, you’ve just “said or repeated” a lot of damaging things about Francis here in this article. You’ve accused him of protecting “criminal perverts and their abettors”–a pretty vile thing to say–and of appearing to act as a ruthless autocrat, among other things. Here in this very publication, Dr. Larry Chapp has also called him a “lousy pope” and a “dangerous pope.” Suppose Francis one day gets fed up with laymen like you (and Chapp, and Raymond Arroyo and Michael Voris, et al) and decides to level excommunications reserved-to-the-Holy See at the lot of you–or perhaps lesser measures like interdictions, or warnings to outlets to cease and desist publishing you lest they lose the right to use the word “Catholic” in their name. Wouldn’t you say that you’ve got it coming? That maybe you should have bridled your language?
“Bridled your language”? So you’re saying free speech has no place here? You’re advocating for self censorship out of fear? Perhaps you’ve failed to count how many times our Lord said to “fear not”. Francis is an AntiPope at best and Bishop Strickland was too kind is his criticism of “Pope” Francis. This Pope protects perverts while silencing the victims, and he’s done this many many times. Take some time to read what St. Catherine of Siena said to many of the Bishops in convincing them they were backing a false Pope
I am saying nothing of the sort. I am questioning the author of this article regarding his charge that Bishop Strickland’s language against the pope was out of line, while the author himself recites highly damaging accusations against the pope in his article. (Come to think of it, his harsh treatment of Strickland and the bishop’s followers strikes me as rather intemperate, too.) There appears to be a double standard operating. He upbraids Strickland for the stridency of his denunciations of Francis without ever judging whether: a) the accusations are true, and b) whether if true, the undeniable seriousness of the matter demands a no-holds-barred denunciation at least for the good of the faithful and the public, if not the good of Francis. After having thus dismissed Strickland, the author himself then makes the lurid charge against Francis of having protected and fostered “criminal perverts,” with no sense of irony–that is, without addressing the obvious question of why Strickland is blameworthy for his vehemence in having attacked the pope, never mind whether the attacks are accurate, then why is the author of this article not equally blameworthy for his own attacks right here? Or to put it another way, if Francis really is protecting “criminal perverts” (along with committing numerous other misdeeds) it certainly seems to me that he can hardly be denounced strongly enough, often enough and by high enough persons in the church, who would have not merely the justification for, but the duty to denounce him harshly and often for such outrageous crimes. Do you understand me now?
NO.
This Pope appears more in line with Protestantism than Catholicism.
I think many evangelicals would disagree.
Not in the least if what they are saying is true, and given Francis’ support of abortion, regardless of lip service, and governmental tyrannies, I would accuse him of crimes against humanity. Let him try to excommunicate me. I would initiate international civil actions against him, which I’ve verified are feasible.
“The very short version of a very sad story is that Strickland said or repeated lots of very nasty things about Pope Francis…”
I think the key question is, Were the things that Bishop Strickland said true?
In what so frequently seems to be a club of “go along to get along” bishops, Bishop Strickland stood out as a bishop willing to teach the truth in season and out of season.
Overall, I think that this article is a very unfortunate negative characterization of a very fine bishop.
All I can say is that here in Australia, we had/have a bishop (Saunders of Broome) who has been ‘allegedly’ sexually abusing young Indigenous men (and a few others along the way) and has a long history of other abuses, including embezzlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars, has been accused of being a serial bully, and we have been trying for years for to get the Vatican to do something about him. His fellow bishops were incredibly silent until they realised he was embezzling their money. Something is finally happening but not because the Vatican was proactive but because the bishop was exposed by two brave whistleblowers, one a priest and one his secretary (see https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/investigation-has-found-broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-likely-to-have-sexually-assaulted-four-youths-c-11940349 ) And then there’s Marko the Misconductor, who was about to be given a new posting but because of the outcries, well, we’re still not sure how he’s going to end up, are we. And here’s a good Bishop apparently, deeply loved, and he gets the sack. Well, what are we supposed to think, you tel me? I for one have had it with this ‘Vatican’.
It’s obvious you’re not a fan of Bishop Strickland. I wonder, however, if it ever occurred to you that, in spite of your own opinion, that the reason for the lack of transparency is due to the lack of evidence?
“Francis is arguably the one bishop in the world with the most to lose from transparency in the practice of governance.”
Francis may arguably be the one bishop in the world with the most to lose from transparency in the practice of governance, but this does not change the fact that Francis does not even appear to be Catholic given the fact that the company he chooses to keep is not due to a desire to lead them to Christ, The Word Of Perfect Love Incarnate, so that they, in recognizing Christ, in all His Glory, hopefully will repent , and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy, and become part of The One Body Of Christ, outside of which there is no Salvation, due to The
Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
It is not Loving or Merciful to desire that we or our beloved remain in our sins and not desire to overcome our disordered inclinations toward sin, and become transformed ,through repenting and accepting Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy, For if it were true that it is Loving and Merciful to remain in our sins and not desire to overcome our disordered inclinations toward sin, we would have no need for Our Savior, Jesus The Christ, which is Apostasy.
Only The Truth Of Love , Our Savior, Jesus The Christ, can set us free and lead us to Salvation.
Jorge Bergoglio’s apostasy was external and made public and notorious, when as a cardinal, he stated in his book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex sexual relationships, and thus same-sex sexual acts, prior to his election as pope, on page 117, denying The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), and demonstrating that he does not hold, keep, or teach The Catholic Faith, and was not in communion with Christ and His Church and he continues to act accordingly:
“If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected. Now, if the union is given the category of marriage, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help shape their identity.”- Jorge Bergoglio, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and the fact that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, while denying sin done in private is sin.
The election of a man to The Papacy, who was not in communion with Christ and every other previously validly elected Pope, prior to his election, and is thus anti Pope and anti Filioque, is not valid.
The Office Of The MUNUS is “Forever”, as confirmed Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
Jorge Bergoglio, unlike every validly elected Pope, rejects The Office Of The MUNUS, and by his opposition to Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, And The Teaching Of The Magisterium, The Deposit Of Faith That Christ Has Entrusted To His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), has demonstrated that he cannot possibly be a successor of Peter.
“It is clear, therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. (Dei Verbum 10)”
Salvation is Of The Jews, From The Father, Through The Son, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
https://biblehub.com/drbc/john/4.htm
Francis is the first elected Pope to claim that we should dismiss the harm of sin done in private while denying the Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament Of Holy Matrimony, and denying the fact that we are Called to be “Temples Of The Holy Spirit”, by virtue of the fact that he rejects the role of The Holy Ghost In what he refers to as “private” relationships.
Despite the fact that Francis is both anti Pope and anti Filioque and we are in need of a Council to elect a man to The Papacy who believes “ That which every Catholic must believe with Divine and Catholic Faith “ (Catholic Canon 750-751), and “confirm the brethren in the Faith”, we must continue to Rejoice!
“At the heart of Liberty Is Christ, 4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.”
Beware.
(From my recollection) – The Mexico interview was leaked where it reports that he said, “I stood for this”, i.e., in the past tense.
I have said elsewhere he is obliged to clarify the ambiguity.
Imagine if after the Council of Jerusalem, the First Council, Peter went around privately promoting circumcision and privately arguing that “It was not prohibited by the Council therefore you must do it and you can repent of it in the end if you really felt you needed to by then. I have your back brother.”
CHRISTOPHER Altieri writes: “…Close your eyes for just ten seconds and imagine a world in which no such thing as Twitter ever existed.
Are you back and reading again?
In the fantasy world without The Thing That Used To Be Called Twitter, would you even know who Joseph Strickland is?…”.
Response: CHRISTOPHER, in the fantasy world without The Internet thingie, would anyone know who CHRISTOPHER Altieri is?
What a vacuous diatribe! This type of slanted commentary belongs in one of the articles by Editor CHRIS Altieri over on the nominally catholic website spearheaded by John Allen. This article uses every entry in the Handbook Of Derogatory Adjectives And Phrases in demeaning Bishop Strickland while offering nothing whatsoever new regarding the heavy-handedness of the Pope and his Posse.
CHRISTOPHER Altieri writes: “…Close your eyes for just ten seconds and imagine a world in which no such thing as Twitter ever existed.
Are you back and reading again?
In the fantasy world without The Thing That Used To Be Called Twitter, would you even know who Joseph Strickland is?…”.
Response: CHRISTOPHER, in the fantasy world without The Internet thingie, would anyone know who CHRISTOPHER Altieri is?
What a vacuous diatribe! This type of slanted commentary belongs in one of the articles by Editor CHRIS Altieri over on the nominally catholic website spearheaded by John Allen. This article uses every entry in the Handbook Of Derogatory Adjectives And Phrases in demeaning Bishop Strickland while offering nothing whatsoever new regarding the heavy-handedness of the Pope and his Posse.
Strickland’s “mistake” was to say out loud what many clergy are afraid to say. And now, Strickland has had his John the Baptist moment, so to speak. Yes, Francis is Pope, and yes, Francis is a dictator, and as a dictator, Francis knows that he is despised, and as a dictator, his instrument of rule is not law, but fear, thus he decapitates any priest or prelate who opposes him, or who states what is now quite obvious: Francis is “undermining the deposit of faith.”
I appreciate that Pope Francis erred on the side of love, not hurting the remorseless Stickland by publicizing the dirty laundry that led to his expulsion.
Pope Francis had to protect the church from a bishop doubling down, defending immoral people such as Donald Trump and degenerates who made excuses for lynching and found lynching acceptable. He avoided humiliating the renegade bishop, who many would argue had sided with those doing the devil’s work. Pope Francis’s kindness came at the cost of being accused of lack of transparency. But what was the alternative? Exposing the rot that led to his decision would have hurt the renegate. Bishop Stickland would do well to count his blessings instead of attacking the Good Pope.
You can’t be serious! Calling one person somewhat connected in an abstract way with Strickland immoral. Well what the heck about McCarrick, what about Rupnik? What about Archbishop Zanchetta? They aren’t immoral? They account for how many sexual abuse victims? Wow! Your statement is absolutely shocking. Or are you part of the crowd who thinks sexual abuse, you know those sins below the belt, involving the 6th Commandment, small sins?
Obviously, you have never met Bishop Strickland. Have you even been to Texas? (Has Altieri?)
How are you defending the Pope by maligning the character of another successor of the Apostles? Where is your transparency? Matthew 10:25
Come on, now! I’ve seen no evidence that Strickland has supported lynching. That is absolutely ridiculous! You’ve made a laughingstock out of yourself.
Eleftherios,
Speaking of erring & charity….Would we might see more of that in the comment boxes.
Mr Eleftherios
Re: “I appreciate that Pope Francis erred on the side of love, not hurting the remorseless Stickland”
Fortunately the Church bureaucrats err on the side of love a lot. Otherwise poor Cardinal McCarrick would be in prison now.
Remind me again how many altar boys did Bishop Strickland rape?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I’m sorry to say it, but this has to be one of the most delusional takes I’ve read in several years. Maybe you’re so good-hearted that you can’t see evil in the person of Francis (only in the person of those he punishes). But more likely, I think, you have made an ‘a priori’ assumption that Francis can do no wrong, and consequently, every outrageous thing he says or does is automatically good. The Good Pope! (Oh my goodness! Can’t stop laughing about that.)
The more scholarly sister of “X” (Wikipedia) informs: “Occultation” is “Not to be confused with Occult.”
Mr. Altieri’s question, not so easily answered, I submitted to my Chat GPT4 friend. She described the question as complex, she then took up the challenge and answered:
“If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. (scborromeo.org citing CCC)
“The Church has no authority or power apart from the Word of God, and certainly no authority above the Word of God. The Church’s power is spiritual, and she wields spiritual weapons: the Word of God, the sacraments, and prayer. (USCCB)
“[A]s the body and bride of Christ,…such authority as the Church has, she receives from Christ. The Church has been entrusted with the Word of God, and she is to preserve it, teach it, and preach it. The Church has the authority to carry out Christ’s commandments with respect to her mission.
“[A]uthority… is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. The Church has no authority or power apart from the Word of God, and certainly no authority above the Word of God. (CCC)”
The answer is clear to me.
Et tu?
Justice would be met when the elevation by His Holiness of wretches to high office is also subject to investigation. Preferably by a council of bishops and cardinals.
Altieri alludes to this discrepancy of justice, his suggestion for such a council of bishops regarding bishop Strickland would have been a worthwhile decision, if only for informing an aroused, uninformed public. Inclusion too of Pope Francis’ transformation of the Vatican into what? A field hospital for the morally handicapped? That would be a step forward. Although what is good for the goose unfortunately cannot be requisite for this gander.
I would not be surprised if Mr. Altieri pens a column one day entitled “Bishop Strickland was right after all”. It’s okay you don’t come to the same conclusion right away. Pope Francis is a Jesuit. He may not be a pious Catholic, but he is certainly a man of great natural intelligence. If he proves to be, as some fear, a destroyer Pope, it won’t be because he didn’t know what he was doing. Maybe some people can see that outcome better than you.
I was about to say this, the Pope is Jesuit.
If you want a counterpoint to this very biased article by Alteiri, go to today’s Crisis Magazine website and read the article by Kevin Wells entitled “Silence in the Face of the Homosexual Infestation of the Clergy”. That is the kind of Church we have in the USA and to which the Vatican gives a wink and a nod.
Until I take my final breath, two memories of my Church I will take to my grave. The first is my sitting in a proessional consultation session with a sitting Ordinary who came in to see me about being depressed and told me about his sexual relationships with a number of priests under his governance. He remained Ordinary of his diocese until he retired. He has since died. The second memory is my being part of a team sent by Cardinal O’Connor to one of the parishes in his archdiocese to do damage control with the Catholics of that parish immediately after news had broken that their pastor had sexually abused more than forty underage boys in a “club” he had formed for this expressed reason. I will always remember the palpable pain, rage, and utter disappointment in their Church on the part of this “parochial synod” assembled that day.
In my mind, it is these kinds of outrageous behaviors and the ethos that has surrounded them in the Church over the past 50 years and that this papacy does nothing about and, in fact, promotes that Bishop Strickland voiced his utter condemnation about.
Extreme departure from the teachings of Christ call for an extreme response. Let’s remember that it was Christ himself who said something to the effect that He would spit out of his mouth the most reeprehensible.
Another quite moving counterpoint to the ongoing smearing of Bishop Strickland by people like Altieri, Chapp, Lofton, and others can be seen in the recently released YouTube video interview between Eric Sammons and a deacon, Keith Fournier, who has known and served with Bishop Strickland for many years. The picture of Bishop Strickland painted by Deacon Fournier is quite different than the picture painted by the Bishop’s detractors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkdoXevkymM
What happened to ALL the comments???
Bishop Strickland has emerged as a hero to many Catholics who find difficult to accept Pope Francis’s modernization of the timeless truths of the Catholic Faith. They see, in Pope Francis’s teachings, what the Church, under the papacy of Saint Pius X, condemned as the heresy of modernism. They may not know anything about Saint Pius X’s condemnation of modernism, but they sense the wrong involved in Pope Francis’s efforts to update the timeless truths revealed to us by God Himself and to reconcile those eternal truths with the “wisdom” of the modern world. They are confused and–truth be told–dwindling in number (i.e., leaving the Church). Those who have not left the Church are looking for a hero to save the Faith, and no one is stepping up except Bishop Strickland.
A recent event connected with the Synod on Synodality illustrates this point. A canonical “dubia” was sent to Pope Francis by five very brave and lonely Cardinals (only five of the College of Cardinals’ current two-hundred and forty-two members). Here’s one of the questions that the dubia asked the pope to answer: “… whether in the Church Divine Revelation should be reinterpreted according to the cultural changes of our time and according to the new anthropological vision that these changes promote; or whether Divine Revelation is binding forever, immutable and therefore not to be contradicted.” Why only 5 out of 232?
From all that has been going on in the Catholic Church in recent years, culminating in the current over-the-top “woke”-globalist-modernist agenda of Pope Francis, I find myself approaching the conclusion that the Catholic Christianity into which I was baptized eighty-five years ago is about to self-destruct in Pope Francis’s ill-begotten Synod on Synodality—in his current complex efforts to turn the Catholic Church into a strange new “globalist-modernist-synodality” type of Church in which the timeless truths of the Catholic Faith are ignored—replaced by times-conscious, trendy untruths, created in the chaos of fickle human social, political, and religious preferences—turning God into an image and likeness of Us!
I, like a dwindling number of other Catholics, am looking for a hero. If not Bishop Strickland, who? Pope Francis? Who??
A complex problem very well stated. No simple way out now the lines are drawn and no likely reconciliation in sight. The Pope is old and his papacy winding down and we must wait for the new pope to straighten out the multiple messes that this pope has inherited and created. I don’t envy this man. He needs all our prayers even now. Thanks again and God bless.
Both Christopher Altieri and Larry Chapp wrote quite sensible articles and are being lambasted here because they aren’t squarely in one camp or the other. The main point is that the faithful are entitled to a reasonable explanation of why a bishop is deposed and they have a snowball’s chance in you know where of getting one these days. Deposing a bishop should, as Altieri notes, be rare and the evidence supporting the action painstakingly justified, even if some may not like or agree with the explanation– but at the least a thorough explanation should be provided.
I am struggling with Altieri and Chapp trying to paint Strickland as some kind of incendiary firebrand. I watched his interview on LifeSite and he is calmly exhorting everyone to patience and prayer, especially for the Pope.
If the best you can do is point to him sharing what someone else said or writing that he opposes a certain program, it’s probably best not to villify him.
What a poorly written, sarcastic article. In all the years I’ve been reading Catholic World Report, this is the weakest article they have ever published. It’s ironic that I came to this article from “The Thing That Used To Be Twitter.”
I’m waiting to see what Bp. Strickland does now.ĺ
St. Athanasius was very productive during his exiles.
The eyes of Texas are upon you all the live long day. The eyes of Texas will support you, the villains shall not get away. Do not think they will escape us as we pray from night til early morn. The ayes of Texas are with you until Gabriel blows his horn. We Texans are with you Brother Strickland and know you are a good and holy man.
Glad to hear it. From the trenches in pro-life with Bishop Strickland, all we had upon us was the Eye of Sauron!
A thoroughly tendentious and tedious article, Mr. Altieri. The central question is: was Bishop Strickland remotely correct about PF? You bet he was . . . in fact he was reasonably charitable in his points. I would only object to the “diabolically disoriented” comment because PF is not disoriented – he knows exactly what he’s doing and is oriented like laser-beam on the destruction of the Catholic Church. How won’t succeed, but many souls will be lost before his failure becomes manifest.
I suspect Bishop Strickland will fare better at his particular judgment than PF (that’s a low bar, I know) and you, Mr. Altieri.
I was with you until you called Pope Francis “PF” while calling the Bishop appropriately. That told me all I need to know about you and your opinions, even as you admit it was a “low bar.” Most likely that was to not receive even so minimal a comment as mine.
I have just listened on YouTube to a lecture given two weeks ago by Douglas Murray entitled: “Scruton Lectures 2023 – Douglas Murray on The Life and Legacy of Sir Roger Scruton.” It is an eloquent tour de force exposition of the man Roger Scruton. I couldn’t help but associate Murray’s discourse on Scruton to this week’s treatment of Bishop Strickland by Pope Francis.
I would heartily encourage Mr. Altieri to listen to Murray’s lecture and then reflect on his treatment of Bishop Strickland in this article. In fact, I’d encourage anyone here at all interested in notions such as Truth, Goodness, Fairness, and Beauty to spend 40 minutes listening to this lecture as well. I’d be surprised if anyone were to then tell me that they weren’t edified personally after listening to Murray’s words.
It appears to me that Bishop Strickland’ sin was that he took his gloves off, spoked his mind and called a spade a spade. Thus he did something that the majority of bishops don’t dare to do.
Yeah, but you’re not going to win the fight if your opponent is bigger and stronger than you.
Moral of the story: Think before you challenge. You could be right and so dead right that in a moment, you’re dead. You’re not David.
We get it. You look down at +Strickland as a low-class redneck. But in what world and Church in which Saint Nicholas physically struck the heretic Arius at the Council of Nicaea are some tough words spoken about another heretic somehow beyond the pale?
Arius was not the Pope.
“Outsized public profile”, “cobbled from parts”, “minuscule fraction”, “very nasty things”, “awfully ill-tempered, frankly hare brained”…. Oh boy, what a typical hit piece using emotional and biased language. Honestly, it’s like a tabloid trash piece.
This isn’t journalism, this is a high school project written by a vindictive twit.
God bless good Bishop Strickland.
Lord have mercy on Francis soul.
Pope Francis had called for parrhesia and making a mess. Is he trying to say that it’s ended? Or is it that there is a limit?
Parrhesia and making a mess are tricks for “showing up the faithful” in their weakness “if you dig deep enough”? The Pope has not been indiscriminate?
There is an inherent danger with wrong conviction, in that it is not only wrong but it is cementing bad disposition while pressing on with the bad example.
I seems the CWR take is that bishop Strickland was asking for it. Has bishop Strickland committed any grave canonical crimes? Are intemperate – but basically true – remarks on twitter now considered serious misconduct that demands prompt removal of a bishop from his see? I am shocked that Mr. Altier does not see this measure taken against bishop Strickland by pope Francis as scandalous. This firing is a very bad look for the synodal church of listening, tenderness and accompaniment. This is just the latest example of the pope’s expedient abuse of power. The real problem is not bishop Strickland but this pontificate which as cardinal Pell said, “is a disaster in many or most respects; a catastrophe”.
I have to ask, in all seriousness: Did you actually read the entire opinion piece by Mr. Altieri?
Mr. Olsen – I have often thought that your comebacks to certain comments were right on the money, but not this time.
It appears to me that the commenters on this piece have read the article, and the vast majority see it as a mostly hit piece on Bishop Strickland, as do I.
That being the case, even with a few negative statements about the pope’s handling of the situation, the thrust of the article does come across as a mostly hit piece on Bishop Strickland.
Amen! Crusader, I echo your sentiments!
It seems most commenters are saying that Bishop Strickland is right and the Pope is wrong. Of course, Strickland’s stand is right, even dead right. But now it’s just dead.
The point is, You don’t go to war unless you’re sure you have a chance of winning.
“Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with 10,000 troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with 20,000 troops?” Lk 14:31
I am 80 years old, but the Pope is older than me. I still hope to see the day when the Lord’s biological solution will sort it all for us.
Martyrs lost?
Was Luther a martyr?
It’s not merely a chance of winning, but a guarantee. The war is Christ’s. What Strickland, a soldier in this and not the king, was looking at was a chance of remaining unscathed, and no soldier worth his salt considers that their primary goal. The soldier’s goal is to fight the enemy in obedience to the king.
This is not a war against Pope Francis. The conclave of 2013 was hardly so unlucky as to have a bunch of sincere, competent bishops hoodwinked into selecting the only rotten one among them. Catholics avoiding pregnancy use contraception at a rate of over 80%… and judging by Communion lines, most proceed to receive Holy Communion. The biological solution is not going to work. Only conversion will, and bishops cannot achieve that by sitting down, shutting up, and waiting it out for the sake of their careers. Neither can we.
You are right, of course. But we can hope that the next Pope will be better, will do good.
Carl,
I think that people likely read the article but perhaps didn’t read the end or arrived at an early conclusion based on the first half of the piece. They likely missed the subtlety and misinterpreted its nuanced irony in the second half. Altieri often only obliquely points to a needle in a stack, and the needle is frequently difficult to see even on x-ray.
Also, I am always amazed at the herd mentality of (primarily) new commenters voicing emotional, not completely baked conclusions.
I support Strickland, and I support Altieri’s treatment of Strickland. I read Altieri as fully supporting Strickland. What else could Altieri possibly intend by asking whether moral authority could be found in Rome?
I appreciate your thoughtful and perceptive comment!
To Carl E. Olson and Meiron:
Are you two serious? Altieri blasts Strickland throughout his article, and not just in the first part. Watch the interview between Eric Sammons and Keith Fournier I mentioned earlier today to see why Altieri and others piling on Strickland are just flat out wrong. Also consider that Altieri, like others, claim that Strickland made many over-the-top comments, but he and they only cite 2 or 3 and claim there are many more that never appear anywhere.
Here’s the link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkdoXevkymM
Who were the greatest threats to the Church? The bishop with kids? The pedophile? That swanky character who murdered his opposition, appointed his son as bishop and stole from the coffers?
Did they not exist in the past? Of course they did, all of them and more. Unseemly types, but they are basically forgotten. None of them go down as the big threats. When I learned about threats, it was about bishops, Arius, Nestorius, and others that threatened the communion. They presented false, schismatic, but very believable errors that pulled the faithful apart. They were intelligent, even holy, and they were attractive. They didn’t preach to change the church they always preached that the church has changed, and they were the ones to save it from the gates of hell. Fat chance. To Strickland, Athanasius, Burke, and all the self appointed doomsday “prophets”. In all this time the formula has remained the same: Repent and believe the good news. The good news, you are not the saviors of the church.
How could anyone possibly misunderstand the lessons of the Arian heresy more completely than you apparently do?
How so?
The entire thesis of this article is that Strickland has somehow lost touch with reality by suggesting his consent to the idea that Bergoglio is a “diabolically disoriented clown,” when in fact those who maintain that Bergoglio is no such figure are the ones who are losing touch with reality. Altieri even quotes this statement by Strickland as if it were somehow problematic: “I believe Pope Francis is the pope, but it is time for me to say that I reject his program of undermining the deposit of faith.” Frankly, anyone who cannot and who will not make the same statement is not even worthy to be called a Catholic. Mr. Altieri has seriously discredited himself with this article.
Thank you and God bless you for this balanced, easy to read, and reasonable article, Mr. Christopher R. Altieri. I totally agree with you.
Unfortunately, the aggregator Canon 212 hits you and CWR with their usual malicious headline. How I wished Pewsitter were still here.
“Official Channels” and that is precisely the problem – – – the faithful are free and willing to listen to other channels, i.e. “X” and the side of Bishop Strickland. Our Lady said that Bishop would oppose Bishop, that Rome would lose the faith, etc., etc. I see daily the reality of why I pay attention to our Blessed Mother and the many warnings she has given us for over a century now. Official channels aside, let us heed the warnings of Our Blessed Mother – THE Official Channel, if you will, of Heaven itself. Deo Gratias!
Based on my limited knowledge/understanding, Bishop Strickland is a lot like St Athanasius. Both stood/stand up for Truth and both were/are removed from office.
https://www.dioceseoftyler.org/vocations/
Seeing Fr. Tim Kelly of Tyler abuse his Bishop Strickland in the NYT for supposedly abusing obedience as Bishop – so that the Pope could abuse obedience against Strickland – so that Bishop Vasquez and friends could conquer by obedience. What must the 21 Seminarians think about making a promise of obedience? Devil’s playground.
As an aside, I wonder how many Seminarians came from Fr. Kelly’s Parish?
Fr. Kelly’s opinion on the cause of removal, is revealed in the NYT, according to this link of theirs I retrieved.
If that was indeed the basis of it, then, rather than take notice of how the Pope’s actions and statements are being perceived, as Bishop Strickland has been conveying, the Bishop is removed to make it worse. And unfortunately Fr. Kelly is unable to form out the context fully. Hasn’t the Angelus attendance in St. Peter’s Square been falling the past few years?
If Bishop Strickland has not been told what the cause is, how does he seek out the reconciliation between them? It has to be by true inspiration.
‘ Bishop Strickland, 65 and well below the age of automatic resignation, tested the limits of that tolerance. On Oct. 31, he addressed the Rome Life Forum, a conference hosted by LifeSiteNews. He read what he described as a letter from an anonymous friend that suggested that Francis was a “usurper” in the role of pope, one who has “endangered souls by proclaiming that they are justified before God as they are, with no need of repentance.”
The speech shocked Rev. Timothy Kelly, the pastor of Holy Spirit Catholic Church in the diocese of Tyler. “How can you leave him in office after that?” he asked. “You can’t.”
Father Kelly, who has known Bishop Strickland since the 1990s, said that the bishop had grown imperious in his leadership over the past six or seven years, falling in with a group of clergy who pulled him to the right ideologically. ‘
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/11/world/europe/pope-francis-joseph-strickland.html
This article says it all…thank you, great perspective.
Was there any merit with the Bishop’s gripes to begin with? All other discussions are predicated with this.
Social media, the Bishop’s state of mind, etc., notwithstanding.
“He could have convened an actual synod of bishops to hear a brief against Strickland, and summoned Strickland to answer for himself before the synod.”
How about a Provincial Council to summon Bergoglio to answer for himself regarding his support for all the New World Order agendas and his various blasphemies such as Pacha Mama?
I,too, am skeptical about Fr. Tim Kelly’s criticism of Bishop Strickland.
The fact that said criticism appears in the NYT doesn’t exactly allay my suspicions.
Twitter rebrand to “X”
A pagan’s [Elon Musk’s] homage to their chief god Osiris [“X”].
Cf. Twitter handle @CrucifixDamiano
Cf Paganism is ubiquitous!
(Thread)
If Francis’ predecessors had only acted with half the ruthless determination he has shown, the Church would be in a much better place today. Consider the case of the raging homosexual, Rembert Weakland. When his behavior became too much in Rome for even Paul VI, he was promoted, not fired. The heretic, pervert, criminal and protector of molesters got over twenty-five years to destroy Catholicism in the Diocese of Milwaukee. He accomplished his mission quite well. Recall the pathetic cease and desist orders given by John Paul II’s Vatican at the end when Weakland was wreckovating the Cathedral of St John the Evangelist. Weakland told them to buzz off and completed his destruction. If only , Twitter had been around then perhaps he would have finally gone too far with mean posts.
The “disrespectful” social media posts are not the cause of Bishop Strickland’s dismissal. His demand for answers for the rise and reign of Theodore McCarrick points to the much more likely reason. The homosexuals in the Vatican and the US Church will not tolerate such insolence.
Deacon Edward,
O, that we have an Apostate Bishop for a Pope, it means the conspiracy in the Church is far advanced.
Are there transgenders among clergy and religious? You bet! “Fr” Gerald Murray is one such.
And our virgin daughters into nunneries with such [e.g. a Mother Superior who is actually a man], may such a revelation truly horrify as to the abominations behind the walls. Pagans do horrific pagan things. Think sexual rituals and sacrifices that involve even babies.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Moreover, be very careful of calumny. It can be damning.
You are a Deacon in the US? If yes, you know exactly what I am talking about as The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is 100% pagan.
Repeating, pagans do horrific pagan things.
SHY…, I am referring to your characterization of Fr. Gerald Murray.
Excuse me? Father Gerald Murray of the archdiocese of New York, member of Raymond Arroyo’s “papal posse” is a transgendered person? Do you want to elaborate here, or is this some kind of a put-on?
Dear Mr Larry Northon,
So is Missus Raymond Arroyo and her husband Rebecca.
Add Bishop Barron.
As a general rule, anyone in Hollywood and in MSM media.
…
And so is Barack Obama. That’s what their toying with us as regards his birth certificate was all about.
Among leaders, he is not the only one and neither is he an exception among Presidents and other especially Western leaders and monarchs. Queen Victoria was such one person. That’s the secret in “Victoria’s Secret”.
That’s how pagans roll.
…
As relates to the Church:
Flanking is a time immemorial military strategy.
The Apocalyptic Beasts’ flanking maneuver to overturn/crush The Altar:
Left Flank: OVERT and noisy campaign for FEMALE Priests (knowing this is an impossibility in the True Church)
Right Flank: COVERTLY infiltrate TRANSMEN (FtM = Female to Male Transgender) into the Priesthood.
I put it to you and all here that if one had preternatural intelligence, this is exactly how they would advance against the Church in attempt to prevail against her.
Kyrie eleison!
Maranatha! Our LORD, come!
Okay, so now you’re accusing Raymond Arroyo, his wife, Barack Obama, Bishop Barron and the late English Queen Victoria, in addition to Father Murray, of being transgender–without offering any proof. Either this is satire or, frankly, you should be seeing someone. And frankly, CWR should not be publishing this kind of utter garbage from an obviously unbalanced person. Editors, where is your judgment?
It seems pretty clear that Pope Francis was, indeed, rebuking a conservative in order to send a message. But Strickland also had exhibited a lot of bad judgment. His keen support for Donald Trump and his unseemly presence at the so-called Jericho March certainly undermined his authority.
I was waiting for it, and it finally arrived…Slander by association with Trump’s name. Pretty rock bottom, this.
Pay attention. Don’t be deceived. Stop the bickering among ourselves. We need to remain UNITED. The Battle IS NOT WITH FLESH AND BLOOD. Stay focused! PRAY!!!!!!
– – –
“As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests. The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops”. —Blessed Virgin Mary
So the pope has not done any name calling of the orthodox believers? What other pope has instigated a program to stop people praying in a way they feel close to Christ and the Eucharist? For the cause of unity he spreads disunity what type of sophistry is this?
The pope likes to quote Jesus, has he forgotten to “turning the other cheek?” Francis has a broken every record of removing bishops in the last two centuries and perhaps has a record on the number of dubia sent to the seat of Peter.
But the real sin is the scandal caused by the pope’s pronouncements and actions that has resulted in many of the faithful to leave the church of Rome and go elsewhere. As the churches are being emptied of parishioners and closing, the bishops are debate the meaning of synodality! Do you really think synodality is going to win even one convert? Where is the good news of Christ in all of this?
Please do not post if you feel the need to edit my comment. Thanks.
Modernists have “justification” and “divine mercy” as the only 2 guiding moral principles infusing their conscience. They envision a world crafted after their own image and will trounce down those they see represent values and principles from ancient, and clearly BETTER, times in the church. I don’t think anyone can successfully argue that the post V2 church is superior to the post reformation church, the church of the Council of Trent. THAT church had the world, the flesh and the devil as its enemies and equipped itself for the battle accordingly. The post V2 church, has the traditional Church, global warming and closed borders as its enemies and it has, sadly and mistakenly, equipped itself for “accompaniment” against its enemies. The former edifies, the latter flattens. This is what, in my opinion, those farther away from the mindset of the current pope see when they look at the papacy of Francis. It need be no more complicated than that. It sickens. Should those prelates with the perspective to criticize this pope say something? Do they stand up and speak against what are clearly targets resembling low hanging fruit? I think so. Someone has to challenge the narrow and flat mindset of a Jesuit, South-American socialist/communist leaning prelate – even if he wears the white cassock of the pope. It’s not like Francis will allow any pangs of conscience from those of a better formed conscience to sway his agenda – there’s a planet we have to save, and a border we have to breach and well, if you get canceled its your own fault for challenging the “justified”! In fine, even the Princes of the Church can be at fault, i.e. Francis, and can exercise “just anger”, i.e. Strickland. There are SOULS to save, not planets. Last I checked, even the Pagan Aristotle knew prime matter wasn’t infused with a soul to save! Get with it, Frank!
It’s unclear to me who, exactly, is in an “uproar” over the removal of this non consequential bishop. A six figure twitter following does not a bishop make. I have not heard a word about his removal from anyone at my parish. He was fired for insubordination and lack of loyalty to the pope. He is neither the first now likely to be the last bishop removed under such circumstances.
Funny how one can be “fired” for lack of loyalty to the pope, as you say, but the pope can be free to express a clear lack of loyalty to the teachings of the church – anent the current situation of German bishops blessing gay marriages without a single censure. Are you awake, or just “woke”? The former is in touch; the latter, modern and brain-dead.
Perhaps john that tells more about your particular parish. Bishop Strickland is well loved by many people in our area & this has been very sad news.
John, You’re probably right. With this tyrannical, uncharitable, and petty vindictive man occupying the Chair of Peter, we can likely expect more bodies to pile up. What a legacy for a Pope.
Nothing short of a face to face dialogue matches a visual interview by an honest broker of the man of the hour Bishop Strickland. His verbatim tweet in context of how it occurred belongs more to the heart of the prophet than to that of the crank pictured by Christopher Altieri.
Strickland is a pariah because of his genuine faith, that fidelity lacking in many of his detractors. Faith is more than professing to live it. Bishop Joseph Strickland is one of those rare eschatological markers that remind us of our drift into darkness. Perhaps it’s telling that his parents were involved in establishing St Catherine of Siena parish in TX. That saint, a prophetic witness to the truth of the faith within the Church from layman to Roman pontiff.
If we were asked whether the world benefits from Bishop Strickland’s witness, or whether we could well do without, this writer’s response is, give us a thousand Bishop Strickland’s.
Bravo, Fr. – well said.
God reward you Father Morello for bringing the required corrective to this article. You speak a truth which is only difficult to digest to those under a foreign spirit.
Thank you, Father Peter for speaking truth to lunacy.
Mr. Alterie,
Bergoglio refusing to discipline the German clergy’s promotion of heresy, including their blasphemous blessing of homosexual fornication, does indeed undermine the deposit of faith.
Who gets removed from office? Not the German clergy but orthodox priests and bishops who state the obvious: Bergoglio is undermining the deposit of faith.
The point of all of this grandstanding is a collective reaction to the manifest consequences of PF ever so slowly, carefully and methodically driving a wedge into the very heart of the Church that our Lord founded on the rock of Peter. Up to the present time, all of the popes, some better than others, have worked and even been martyred to protect the deposit of faith that Christ wanted us to have, to give witness to and even to die in order to defend the reality of our precious faith.
PF’s strategy is to keep driving that wedge until he can accuse those who fail to ally themselves to him of being overtly heretical.
Bishop Strickland stood fast, and so became the first of many yet to come.
We all know where this is going. The point is, there will be no fence-sitting in this battle.
Perhaps God is using PF unwittingly to make each of us, His children, pick a side.
Ditto.
As Altieri notes, PF’s message, by way of Strickland, could be, “pour encourager les autres.” Just so, PF’s message could simultaneously be, “Admonitio fiat tibi.”
Now THAT is what you call a “ratio”! Ha!
And I thought that Catholic World Report was one of the good guys! This article just shows me a different CWR!
May I suggest you give it a second read?
Meiron:
May I suggest you give the article a second read after you watch the YouTube interview between Eric Sammons and Keith Fournier. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkdoXevkymM&t=6s
After watching the interview, you will understand the many ways in which Altieri seriously wrongs Bishop Strickland throughout his article.
Bishop Strickland expressed his frustration. Ok, perhaps it was quite sharp at times. But who isn’t frustrated with this papacy and hasn’t at least thought something similar?
At least one knows what Bishop Strickland thought. 98% of the US bishops say nothing or spout heterodoxy and the faithful are left confused. One can’t deny that Bishop Strickland’s motivation was to help his faithful and the larger Catholic world.
In the end I don’t think he got axed because he was generally outspoken. I think what nailed him was his fight against the current trend of homo-heresy. That doesn’t play favorably with what will surely be the pre-planned outcome of the Synod two years from now.
If the Church leans into allowing gay unions and tries to remove the stigma while at the same time allowing clergy to marry, the end goal is married gay priests. It’s about the clergy and their sinful life less about the life of the laity. I think this is why Strickland had to go as he was a stumbling stone in the pursuit of their sin.
Fr Raymond de Souza, like Altieri makes a good argument for Bishop Strickland’s dismissal. He recounts all the misconceived Twitter remarks [X still called Twitter by aficionados], that Strickland was privileged to attend the USCCB conference, which he was not – he was asked not to. What de Souza neglects is the urgency of the moment, and Bishop Strickland’s conscientious response. As he, Strickland couched it, in favor of the need for all laity to hear a counter argument from a prelate defender of the faith to the pontiff’s apparent disassembling of Catholic doctrine. Bishops, as well as presbyters do indeed have a serious responsibility to clarify doctrine for sake of the salvation of souls.
The Twitter thing is seductive. Did Bishop Strickland lure himself into a corner, while others of the same solid mind have evaded this trap? Recalling, too, how the Samuria warrior would visit a village, require seven peasants to lie down on top of one other, and then swing the super-sharp sword to see if he could slice through all seven in one blow—”a message, ‘pour encourager les autres.’”
Those with seasoned experience from the secular and more overtly political world sometimes learn the rare artform of “committing the truth, and getting away with it.”
My employer, a regional and collaborative public agency, had been totally dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up, twice in not many years. Moments of trip-wire politics, external and internal, collectively and individually. In my case (as staff), probably more luck than skilled artistry….But at one such juncture I was asked by a local Jesuit university to speak with an inquisitive political science class. I was introduced: “…now will explain how he is still there, since the chances of such lengthy survival are less than one-in-one-thousand.”
Transferable lessons: (1) seminary chess clubs, not checkers, to keep the squares covered, and (2) a seminar on counterinsurgency for better internal delegation of tasks, especially involving any readers of the National (non)Catholic Reporter (not Register).
“Listening,” yes, but for two-way listening also spinal presence and prudential judgment. “Innocent as doves, and wise as serpents” (Mt 10:16), both always together. And, testing even the “spirits” (1 Jn 4:1).
I don’t believe a word of this artcle.
The chess analogy makes sense in that it suggests that PF is playing the long game. That, in turn, makes me suspect that his game started much earlier than his papacy. He knows well what he is doing. He is being coached by others…McCarrick & who else…?
There was at one time a YouTube of McCarrick speaking shortly before the last conclave, suggesting that Bergoglio could best reform the church. I have recently searched for the video but could not find it. I believe ‘Chris in Maryland’ (a sometime-commenter here) posted the video in the past. If reads this and if the link still exists, he could perhaps post it again.
See the first link FROMROME-INFO.
If it is same talk, CHRUCH MILITANT has a link to it carried in WORDPRESS -needs a subscription.
Apparently McCarrick originally had no eyes for Bergoglio. See the LIFESITE link.
Pope’s Francis’ “4-minute speech” sounds like my Archbishop talking. Bergoglio had admitted this is what he “was hearing from Latin America”. Reflecting on these statements, they seem to STEREOTYPE the Church 1. making openings for anyone who fits profile and 2. profiling those who do not come up to stereotype. This has been going on where I live A LOT since 2005. I respectfully submit that this is the more significant issue. See the final 2 links.
Stereotyping is REDUCTIONISM. Why is that ALL that was being heard from Latin America?
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/bergoglio-and-mccarrick-manipulating-the-conclave
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/cardinal-mccarrick-confesses-that-he-was-lobbied-to-support-cardinal-bergoglio/
https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2018/06/29/2018-6-28-was-predator-cardinal-mccarrick-a-key-us-lobbyist-for-pope-francis-election/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/predator-cardinal-mccarrick-was-bergoglios-dc-lobbyist/
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-4-minute-speech-that-got-pope-francis-elected
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/03/was-this-the-key-to-bergoglios-election-as-pope/
See the first link FROMROME-INFO.
If it is same talk, CHRUCH MILITANT has a link to it carried in WORDPRESS -needs a subscription.
Apparently McCarrick originally had no eyes for Bergoglio. See the LIFESITE link.
Pope’s Francis’ “4-minute speech” sounds like my Archbishop talking. Bergoglio had admitted this is what he “was hearing from Latin America”. Reflecting on these statements, they seem to STEREOTYPE the Church 1. making openings for anyone who fits profile and 2. profiling those who do not come up to stereotype. This has been going on where I live A LOT since 2005. I respectfully submit that this is the more significant issue. See the final 2 links.
Stereotyping is REDUCTIONISM. Why is that ALL that was being heard from Latin America?
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/bergoglio-and-mccarrick-manipulating-the-conclave
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/cardinal-mccarrick-confesses-that-he-was-lobbied-to-support-cardinal-bergoglio/
https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2018/06/29/2018-6-28-was-predator-cardinal-mccarrick-a-key-us-lobbyist-for-pope-francis-election/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/predator-cardinal-mccarrick-was-bergoglios-dc-lobbyist/
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-4-minute-speech-that-got-pope-francis-elected
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/03/was-this-the-key-to-bergoglios-election-as-pope/
I cannot help but ponder that were our Blessed Savior to return here for a visit, in whose company would He be most “at home”…Bergoglio’s or
Strickland’s.
We are so going to schism. I can’t with these false prophet apologists.
Seriously? I couldn’t even finish this article! Any priest or Bishop who dares disagree with the radical new world order agenda is silenced or promptly removed from their duties…… it’s Rome with all its rot that needs removed
It would be so much easier for me to accept the criticisms of Bishop Strickland — which are essentially objections to his indelicacies of style — if not for the the repeated affronts to all things decent committed by Bergoglio favorites:
— Rupnik
— Cupich
— McElroy
— Martin
— Tucho
— Hollerich
I wish Mr. Altieri would have compared and contrasted the rank hideousness of these men’s offenses against humanity with the lapses in tone of Bishop Strickland.
Yet Strickland, whose excesses are committed in defense of the Church, is the only one who’s been discharged.
I find that really interesting.
We have a Pitiful Pope and a Pitiful President. Both of them claim to be
“Catholic”. Hmmmm…based on their actions it seems to me that 1. Neither one of them like the Church. 2. Neither one of them like this country. GOD…HELP US!
I am a product of what I consider to be an authentic, not secularized and compromised Catholic education. These two men have done a tremendous amount of damage, both to the Church, and this country. Bishop Strickland, though flawed like ALL of us, comes closer to the TRUTH, than either one of the aforementioned gentlemen. That being said, it behooves us, as members of the MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST, to pray for all three men. God loves each and every one of us! Our salvation lies in Jesus Christ and Him alone. AMEN!
Here’s my final take on the Bergoglio vs. Strickland schism – a schism that reflects the schism in the Church that reflects the schism in society at large.
Bishop Strickland is a person who, in his stength of character, exemplifies masculine virtue. Like a man, he is willing to defend the Truth. Bergoglio and his lackies in the Vatican – those he has surrounded himself with – are weak, effeminate men whose sympathies lie with the homosexualists in the Church and in larger society. I don’t need to substantiate my assertion; the evidence is in plain sight for all to see.
This homosexualist agenda in the Church has nothing to do with theology or ecclesiology, it is purely political and is designed to ram perversion, sin, and human disorder down our throats. That’s all anyone needs to understand about Bergoglio vs. Strickland. The homosexualists cannot tolerate being around men whose sexuality is well-integrated in their masculine personality. They must destroy them. Parenthetically, has it ever occurred to anyone that the reason Christ is rarely mentioned in documents coming out of the Bergoglian Papacy is that Christ was a man – a strong man with definite masculine virtues?
Deacon Edward, “think about” is a doing role. What is their corresponding been identity?
Oliver, huh?
Oh that Bishop Strickland! He’s so uncouth in what he says!
“You brood of vipers!” “You belong to (your) father the devil!”
Oh wait a minute! That’s not Bishop Strickland talking to the deceitful, dangerous, and wicked religious leaders of today!
That’s Jesus and John the Baptist talking to the deceitful, dangerous, and wicked religious leaders of their day! I guess Jesus and John the Baptist were uncouth too!
Deacon Edward, your Nov. 18, 1:21am, succinct comment above shows masterful insight into the Strickland – Bergoglio clash! Thank you for your insight!
I only wish Misters Altieri and Olson, talented writers whose writings I otherwise admire, could have gotten to the heart of the matter as you have.
Maggie, in the Divine Office of late we have been reading from the Book of Wisdom. I would say that Wisdom has visited you. Thanks for your comment.
I’ve been contributing $10/month for several years. Please do me the courtesy of showing this comment to a supervisor before it gets deleted. Let this serve as my goodbye to Catholic World Report. After reading this piece for the fourth time, I still think it’s a hit piece on Bishop Strickland. Also, after multiple articles assaulting the intelligence and integrity of those many of us (“unsavory lunatics beyond the fringe, who have doubted and even publicly denied Francis’s legitimacy”) who doubt or deny the legitimacy of the Bergoglio “papacy” (a “papacy” well-versed in name-calling) I’ve grown increasingly frustrated with your insistence that no debate is possible concerning the legitimacy of Bergoglio’s “papacy”.
This comment will never see the light of day, so it’s very blunt – just like “Francis” when he’s barking at anyone who’s not one of his ass-kissers.
Jesus Christ pulled me out of a ditch 45 years ago – the same ditch that Bergoglio, the sleaze-bag, is happily pushing people INTO. I thank God every day that my wife was willing to forgive me and we’re still together. But if BARF-oglio had been Pope back then? I’d probably been more than happy to take him up on his “you are what you are – stay in the ditch”. Please don’t lecture me that “He’s not saying that”. Bullshit! As a former ditch-dweller who still has a lot of “dirt” to scrub off, I know exactly what the “hell” he’s saying.
On another “Catholic Media” site, (which I’m also dumping) I once described Bergoglio’s teaching as “a New Age desert decorated with uprooted Catholic trees”, an apt illustration of his penchant for tossing this or that Catholic truth onto his bizarre lie-infested, heretical MAGICterium (turns virtue into vice). The better to fool gullible people into thinking: “Oh, I knew he was the true Pope, look at the wonderful thing he just said.”
Jesus Christ pleads with us to bring people to Him: to Everlasting Life within the very love and joy of the Holy Trinity! Bergoglio claims that “proselytism is a sin against ecumenism”. That’s heresy! Don’t tell me I’ve misunderstood him. The biggest difference between Bergoglio and the other “Bad Popes” is that none of the other “Bad Popes” were HERETICS. They were just creeps! Bergoglio is a creep AND a heretic.
I’ve been reading history (including Church history) for 60 years. I’m astonished at the miniscule (and misleading) amount of history discussed in the articles published on this and other Catholic sites. This is a topic that cries out for historical context. Were that context provided, support for the Bergoglian “pontificate” would evaporate overnight.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” Under this rubric, Bergoglio has richly deserved every insult hurled at him. As for respecting the Papacy, anyone having real respect for the Papacy must reject Bergoglio: the greatest dis-respecter of the Holy See in the history of the Church (this is no exaggeration)
This is certainly combative and inflammatory – but it’s accurate. I’m not expecting it to be published. But isn’t it interesting that under these guidelines, some of Bergoglio’s writings couldn’t be published either. You guys remind of a chef who keeps adding ingredients to the soup, keep the fire going – but never serve the soup. Good-bye CWR
Truth will out.
Time is on Heaven’s side.
A primer on terms.
“Transgender and transsexual should not be used interchangeably, since they do not mean the same. While transsexual people transition from one sex to the other, transgender people only associate with their identity.
– Transvestite, Transsexual, Transgender: What’s The Difference – https://www.topsurgery.ca/blog/transvestite-transsexual-transgender-whats-difference
SHY…”God created them male and female…” that’s all we need to know…all else is disorder and contrary to the natural order…we don’t need clarification of terminology as if the terms you mentioned had some basis in reality…they don’t.
“At the Mass, the deacon proclaims the Gospel, may be invited to preach the homily, and assists at the altar. The deacon may also baptize, witness and bless marriages, preside at the Liturgy of the Hours, and preside at funeral liturgies among many other duties.
https://lacatholics.org › deacons-role
Deacon’s Role | LA Catholics
Dear Rev. Dcn. Peitler,
“Vatican doctrine office: Transgender-identifying people can be baptized, witness marriages | CNA By Hannah Brockhaus, Nov 8, 2023 / 14:25 pm
A TRANSMAN [born female and now LIVES and IDENTIFIES as a MAN] and A TRANSWOMAN [born male and now LIVES and IDENTIFIES as a WOMAN] want to witness at a wedding you are to bless. From all outer appearances they convincingly appear as MAN and a WOMAN respectively. They tell you they are a Transgender couple but you have not bothered to understand what the term means, what will you do?
Later they have, say a male boy whom they are raising as a girl. Again for all outer appearances, she is a girl. They tell you this is their Transgender girl they want baptized. What are you going to do since you are not bothering to find out what the terms mean?
In case there’s some ambiguity, I guess I’d simply ask the question, “What biological gender did God create this beautiful child?” The same issue arises when a priest or deacon witnesses a marriage since marriage is only possible between one biological male and one biological female for the good of the persons and the procreation of children. Back to baptism, you can only baptize either a biological male or a biological female. All other iterations of gender are faux, make-believe, delusional constructions, political posturings, etc. And thanks for the reminder about who an ordained deacon is.
Thank you very much Rev. Dcn. Peitler.
If I may summarize:
Once those seeking the Church’s Sacraments use the prefix “TRANS”, automatically they are the opposite sex of the word that follows the prefix.
TRANSMAN = WOMAN
TRANSWOMAN = MAN
TRANSboy = girl
TRANSgirl = boy
Of course I take it you will refuse them the Holy Sacraments and are ready for the persecution from your compliant Diocesan Bishop – who among the US/World Bishops is expressing shock and raising alarm?! – who you know has the backing of Rome.
+++++++
Perhaps this is their New World Order at the anthropological level i.e., TRANSMAN = MAN and vice-versa.
+++++++
“The old gods, sex, mammon, and death, are reviving and reasserting themselves as the gods of autonomy. They are beginning to press their hands on the faithless and the faithful alike. They are groping even for the holy sacraments, that they might defile them.
So wrote Prof Douglas Farrow with such prophetic insight in March 2017
DISCERNMENT OF SITUATION (WE MUST NOT FORGET THE SACRAMENTAL NATURE OF THE CHURCH) | FIRST THINGS
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/03/discernment-of-situation
Transgenderism Illustrated
Heaven reveals:
L: TRANSWOMAN [registered as male at birth but who LIVES and IDENTIFIES as a woman; a transgender woman] Leila Lawler [@_Leila]
R: TRANSMAN [registered as female at birth but who LIVES and IDENTIFIES as a man; a transgender man] Phil Lawler [@PhilLawler]
And these, inter alia, present themselves as “Catholics” whilst they are crypto-pagans!
Cf. https://twitter.com/CrucifixDamiano/status/1726215493760192687?t=3kbEFqJ8FLa0LkfQl7I77Q&s=19
MSM has reported that dubia is about “Transgender”. This is not the case. The dubia is about “Transsexuals” and “Homoaffective persons”.
Cf. Answers to Several Questions from His Excellency, the Most Reverend José Negri, Bishop of Santo Amaro, Brazil, Regarding Participation in the Sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony by Transgender (sic) Persons and Homosexual (sic) Persons (3 November 2023)
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_20231031-documento-mons-negri.pdf
Confusion from DDF!
Dubia RE The Holy Sacraments & Transsexuals ie those transitioned from one sex to the other and Transgender ie those living & identifying with the sex opposite to sex at birth, why aren’t Catholic Bishops horrified and raising the alarm?!
An extremely uncharitable, harsh article misrepresenting Strickland. It is very unworthy of Catholic World Report.
I am a conservative Catholic and I have tried hard to live by both the laws of the Church and God’s Ten Commandments all my life. Since I am a sinner, I still need to go to church. Bishop Strickland, is someone that lived by the rules and laws he grew up with and the Church he gave his life to. I still believe in my Church, so I do believe in Bishop Strickland as well. I believe his treatment is totally unfair. Sincerely,
a “diabolically disoriented clown”?
Use rhetoric like this and, yes, your boss will find a way to get rid of you.
Not sure I can blame him, even if his name is Francis.
These were not words that originated with the bishop. He was simply reporting what a third party had said or written and referred to the words in context.
Let’s be really clear here, this isn’t the only American Bishop that Pope Francis has asked to stepdown but Bishop Strickland is the only one to have a fit over obeying the Holy Father. Second, the Church in America doesn’t require transparency, that is a political term in the United States where they think it is their right to know everything but that is not a reality or truth with the Church in Rome. This is a personal matter between the Holy See and a Bishop and no one else.
One would think that a personal matter between the Pope and his bishop would warrant a personal meeting…an accompaniment. I can only conclude that Francis is a coward and doesn’t stand by the words he pronounces publicly. That’s a real problem when it comes to the credibility of this pontificate.
Mr Watson
Re: “this isn’t the only American Bishop that Pope Francis has asked to stepdown”
This is the only American Bishop that Pope Francis has actually fired.
Strickland raped no altar boys, did not steal from the poor box and did not teach heresy. Sadly all too common crimes among American bishops.
Pope Francis acted unlawfully and immorally when he fired Strictland without just cause. And you are just as guilty as the Pope for supporting this unjust act.
Kindly reflect.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Sorry to inform you, Denis, but your comments are foolish and completely out of touch with the regality of today’s Church. The argument “There are others….” fails to answer the question of “Why” for this Bishop’s removal. And the “why” is extremely important for understanding this malicious-appearing move of PF.
Transgender ¡Hagan lío! courtesy Pope Francis [@Pontifex]
Carla is a MAN [From the pictures, can you tell?]! Was born male but now LIVES and IDENTIFIES as a WOMAN.
https://twitter.com/CrucifixDamiano/status/1726501460375151033?t=CHlWjSf3JzXxbicTeQ-YkA&s=19
From a very experienced observer comes reasons to worry:
https://www.complicitclergy.com/2023/11/15/edward-pentin-understanding-the-crisis-in-the-church-and-where-we-go-from-here/
smoke and mirrors
Agent @EdwardPentin!
A general rule: anyone in the MSM media, #Hollywood, i.e., in their propaganda machinery, anyone they give a platform to, is there to mislead & further their War against The Church.
@EdwardPentin a female to male (ftm) TRANSGENDER!
https://twitter.com/CrucifixDamiano/status/1724496765288935819?t=f_Qq8yZi9U68kXIxIL3dkg&s=19
At some point (I found that point during Covid) one will find it necessary to make a choice: follow the Pope or be true to the teachings on faith and morals of the Church. If the pope is not bolstering the teachings of the church, he’s eroding them at best or casting them off, at worse. Either way, these are sad times for the Church and the papacy.