Pope Francis has removed from office Bishop Joseph Strickland of the Diocese of Tyler Texas. This was not unexpected, and many thought it was inevitable following the Vatican’s apostolic visitation earlier this year and subsequent investigation into Bishop Strickland’s management of the diocese. So far, the reasons for this decision have not been forthcoming from the Vatican and it is not clear if they ever will be.
My thoughts on the dismissal are mixed. On the one hand (for reasons outlined below), I have never been a supporter or admirer of Bishop Strickland. Indeed, just last year I published on my blog “A Manifesto for a New Traditionalism” wherein my co-authors and I invited readers to add their signatures to it. Bishop Strickland called me on the phone to discuss the matter and said he was pondering signing it. After some thought I sent him an email in which I politely, but firmly, said no and told him that “with all due respect I did not wish to be associated with his brand of traditionalism.” He was polite in response, said “Thank you”, and that was that.
On the other hand, the Vatican’s removal of Bishop Strickland from office while at the same time giving a pass to radical progressive bishops from Germany, who have publicly dissented from Church teaching, opens the Vatican up to reasonable criticism that there is a double standard at play. There seem to be two sets of rules for bishops: one for conservatives that is punitive and constricting, and another for liberals which is latitudinarian and permissive. I am not saying that there is a complete equivalence here between the two situations, but there is enough of a comparison to at least raise the question.
And, which is worse? Criticizing the Pope publicly in inflammatory ways (especially for a bishop)—or publicly dissenting from long settled Church teaching on sexual morality and calling for wholesale changes in doctrine? In addition, and not unrelated, Pope Francis has a checkered (at best) record on the issue of punishing bishops accused of covering up sexual abuse.
There is a possibility that Bishop Strickland was removed for purely administrative reasons that are not penal in nature. The Vatican may have reached the decision after the apostolic visitation this past June that Bishop Strickland’s duty to manage his diocese properly had fallen short of the minimum threshold required for effective leadership.
But how would we know whether this is the case or not? And does this not just raise many more difficult questions?
This is precisely why it would behoove the Vatican to be completely transparent as to the pastoral reasons for this dismissal. As it stands now, the removal from office of a bishop who is popular among very conservative Catholics is only going to create more bitterness, division, and vitriol among an already alienated constituency of Catholics both clerical and lay. Absent full transparency it will not heal the divisions in the Church but will, like Traditionis Custodes, make them worse and further radicalize those formerly conservative Catholics who have moved toward or into extreme traditionalism in reaction to Pope Francis.
Therefore, without further transparency the Vatican is open to the charge that its much vaunted “listening” to the “people of God” is a rather one-sided affair indeed, if not a total sham, since all of the “listening” seems directed only to those voices the Vatican wants to hear.
Transparency would also help alleviate the appearance of an overly heavy-handed and autocratic use of papal authority. It is very rare for a bishop who has not committed moral or criminal violations of a serious nature, and who has not taught overt heresy and who has not given evidence of mental instability, to be deposed from his office without a public explanation. There are canons in church law that govern such things and it would be helpful if the Vatican specified which canon(s) have been invoked in this case. And this is no idle issue of marginal importance. Popes can do as they please with canon law of course, but if the Pope wishes to create a more “synodal church” then he simply cannot rule autocratically with an l’etat c’est moi mentality.
Furthermore, Pope Francis now has a track record of deposing bishops without public explanation as in the previous case of Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres of Arecibo, Puerto Rico, who was mysteriously relieved of his office without any rationale given. Bishop Torres had opposed mandatory COVID vaccination policies and had balked at sending his seminarians to a particular seminary, but are those really good reasons for deposing a bishop? And who even knows if those were the issues? How could we?
And that is the point. “Transparency and a culture of accountability,” says the recently released Synthesis Report of the 2023 assembly in Rome, “are of crucial importance for us to move
forward in building a synodal Church.” A synodal Church is a transparent Church except, apparently, when the Pope decides otherwise.
This pontificate’s silence in the Strickland case—especially if that silence continues—will only reinforce the idea in certain circles that this is a pontificate that bases itself on a cult of personality and will to power, wherein no explanations are required and asking tough questions are acts of intolerable disobedience. The Vatican needs to understand that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot speak incessantly and with the regularity of a metronome about “parrhesia!” and “synodal listening” and a Church of open transparency—and then turn around and consistently ignore all of that when it is convenient for the Roman powers that be.
However, even in the absence of a full explanation from the Vatican, one can reasonably speculate as to reasons behind this action since many of the particulars are already well known. For starters, Bishop Strickland has been an outspoken critic of Pope Francis. At the end of last month, giving a speech in Rome, he quoted a letter from someone he called a “dear friend” who described Pope Francis as “this usurper of Peter’s chair…” Bishop Strickland did not indicate whether or not he agreed with this assessment. But the mere fact that he quoted it at all, without much comment, is indicative of his sympathy for the extreme frustration felt by those on the radical Catholic Right toward the Pontiff. This is on top of the many critical comments over the past several years, many of them via social media, has strongly criticized the Pontiff, stating earlier this year: “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. Follow Jesus.”
There are many aspects of this papacy that are indeed deeply troubling, and I have noted many of them over the past few years. Many problems with this papacy, in my view, are largely of a pastoral and not a doctrinal kind. And I have attempted to make the case that these pastoral decisions have been deeply problematic. My complaint has been that the pope’s attempts to change pastoral practice in a more permissive direction will, in the end, have theological and doctrinal consequences. But that Rubicon has not yet been crossed, in my view—and may never be crossed.
Less well known amidst the hoopla surrounding Bishop Strickland’s removal from office is that there were also serious and ongoing complaints from priests and laity in his diocese about Bishop Strickland’s governance. And these facts should not be lightly dismissed as a mere smokescreen designed to hide the “real reason” (his criticisms of the Pope) for his dismissal. After all, there are other bishops in the world who have also been critical of the Pope who remain in office and who have not had an apostolic visitation. For example, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary in the diocese of Astana in Kazakhstan, has expressed on numerous occasions his displeasure with Pope Francis (although more diplomatically than Strickland), and his new question-and-answer format catechism, titled Credo, contained a few not-so-veiled attacks on some of the Pope’s teachings ( as well as several teachings of Vatican II). But he remains in office and, as of now, relatively unscathed by Vatican agitations.
All that said, I think Pope Francis is also partly to blame for this mess. The primary pastoral function of the Petrine ministry is to unify the Church by clarifying matters that are in dispute. But I think that Pope Francis has done precisely the opposite and has sowed division by way of a studied ambiguity and the selective use of silence. And when this confusion reaches a level that it troubles the faith of millions of Catholics in a deep way, it boils over and creates confusion, resentment, and even anger. Pope Francis told the youth of Brazil to “make a mess!” But he quickly added that after making the mess they need to stand in solidarity with everyone and to help clean up the mess in constructive ways. Well, Pope Francis himself has in many ways made a mess. But where is the solidarity with those deeply affected by it? Where is the effort to understand the backlash that he himself helped to create and to stand in solidarity with the souls that he has so troubled? And what, exactly, did he expect would happen?
Bishop Strickland may or may not have deserved to be relieved of duty. Ultimately, that is not my call, and it is not my primary concern in the current moment. My concern is that so many of these “inside baseball” ecclesial issues are a sign of the ascendancy of a narrowly political view of the Church at the expense of the Church’s primary mission of making saints of us all and calling others to salvation. Sadly, it is indicative of a very narrow politics that everyone is funneled through the choke point of “friends or enemies”, and every penultimate “issue” is dealt with as an instance of ultimacy and pressed upon us as something of dire importance. I think this is especially true of progressive Catholics, whose extreme horizontalist understanding of the Church knows only of sociology, psychology, and the politics of constant ecclesial tinkering. But traditional Catholics have also caught the bug, turning every papal misstep into a sign of the greatest perfidy.
Therefore, I view the Strickland demotion much as I view the Synod on Synodality: perhaps needed, but probably not. But, more importantly, as indicative of a Church obsessed with the politics of a bureaucratized view of the faith and obsessed with the inner workings of its own digestive tract. The universal call to holiness is eclipsed in the dumbing and numbing down of the Church via these endless debates (and in the case of the Synod, a debate about debates).
I am not saying that these issues are trivial, because they are important. But until the Church recovers her sense of vocational mission in the world as the making present of the Living Christ through the sanctification of her members and from there on into the world, then these penultimate issues will continue to proliferate and will gradually asphyxiate the life of the Church.
In a word, we need more saints and fewer synods, more transparency and less confusion. And if we must have a synod then let’s have one on saints and how to make more of them. And the bonus is that the saints are the true mess makers—but in the sense that to be concentric to Christ is to be eccentric to the world. And their eccentricity is disruptive, destabilizing of the status quo, and massively interesting. Our bored and desperate world turns to us looking for the provocation of such saints. But our politicized Church tells the world to “talk to the palm” since we are busy doing nothing.
Ultimately, the buck stops with Pope Francis who has presided over and too often provoked this ecclesial descent into acrimonious irrelevance. Bishop Strickland erred greatly in many ways. But he is a sort of episcopal golem of the Pope’s own making.
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.
We have become a people who have an opinion on everything happening in the world and we are critical with topics we have no expertise. Time to show humility and admit we don’t always know and understand everything happening in the world.
What I witnessed on the pro-life front lines in Texas is Bishop Strickland as a Gandalf, supporting those who would destroy the ring. So now he must be shipped off with the elves, even if the fighting spreads in the shire of Tyler. As for Golem, Frodo and Sam, we know them well. And yes, it was Golem who took the ring into the fire. Etc.
Gollum. “Golem” is a creature from Jewish folklore.
Silicon Valley autocorrect. 🤣
In keeping with the theme of religion, Wikipedia cites theologian Ralph Wood on Gollum and golem. Evidently Sméagol’s [AKA Gollum’s] murder of Déagol echoes Cain’s killing of Abel in Genesis (4:1-18). Cain is jealous of his brother Abel; Sméagol [AKA Gollum] is jealous of the shiny gold ring that his friend Déagol has found.
Thanks to theologian Wood, Wikipedia, Silicon Valley, Tolkien, Jewish mythical folklore, the welcome inclusion of Cain and Abel into Christian scripture and tradition, and lastly, to GOD Himself, we are all in this peace and unity together. Kumbaya.
“Autocorrupt”.
For the record, this is what I witnessed in Texas pro-life. The Texas Conference and their lobbyists, except for Bishop Strickland, snuggles up to Democrat and RINO buddies. Bishop Strickland was delivered up to please this pontificate and rid themselves of the one guy who wouldn’t play ball. (Same thing happened in Puerto Rico.) Company men, the lot of ‘em – not one fit to lick Strickland’s boots!
That is what Bishop Strickland meant when he said the cause of his removal was “a lack of fraternity with by brother bishops.”
I do agree with this. I am concerned with the salvation of souls, my own and everyone I know. The teaching of Jesus on human sexual behavior is clear and unambiguous as is the teachings of our Blessed Mother. She told three little children at Fatima, ‘most go to hell because of the sins of the flesh.’ When we fall into these sins, the temptation is to deny they are sins. That mind set can put us on the road to hell. Hopefully, we might give up on Jesus; He never gives up on us. It is bad enough to sin ourselves, but to sanction those who fall into sexual sin is worse in its consequences than those who fall. Saint Michael the Archangel please pray for us.
I read with amusement Dr. Larry Chapp’s saying Bishop Strickland was just not good enough to sign his Manifesto………you gotta luv a guy who is so full of himself that he rejects one of the few holy Bishops in the world.
I do not always agree with Dr. Chapp, but in this case, I think I understand why he did not allow Bishop Strickland to sign the manifesto. Had the bishop signed it, he’d have become the de facto head of the project, and would make the bishop look like a “poacher.” (Strickland has been called a “poacher” before.)
Besides, Chapp does say he does not subscribe to Strickland’s brand of traditionalism.
I don’t see anything wrong with saying “no” to a bishop.
Chapp writes of the “…politics of a bureaucratized view of the faith and obsessed with the inner workings of its own digestive tract.”
But, considering anatomy more inclusively, there’s also the tail wagging the dog….
That is, the “non-synod” (!) German Synodal Weg penetrating the worldwide Rome Synod, so as to smear its unsolicited (non-consensual?) email manifesto across all 360 other members of the Synod. With its (the Synodal Weg’s) fixation on such 21st-century “hot-button concerns” as multitasking the downstream end of the “digestive tract.”
The difference between the German signaling behavior in Rome and the American McCarrick’s grooming behavior in a New Jersey beach house is, what?
All,
Mr. Chapp and others of similiar mindset miss the obvious and want to apply rationale and holy things to irrationale, heretical and sinful things. Suffice it to say, all the flowery Catholic words around a turd do not change the fact that the turd can never be Catholic, bcus a turd is a turd! Period! So, in my humble opionion, the good chap Mr. Chapp would be served well to take his head out of sand, and submit his Deacon status to his Bishop to then forward it to Rome. And Archbishop Chaput, Archbishop Corleone and all the other US Bishops who are just as orthodox as Bishop Strickland is.
Did you read the actual essay? And are you familiar with Dr. Chapp’s work?
And if think Dr. Chapp is a deacon, you need to read up a bit more. He’s not.
His remark was like a sequel to Alice in Wonderland. He may ask for royalties if you let him continue.
Your poor spelling and composition is indicative of a fecal education, yet you possess a magna cum laude in emoting.
Amen
Pope Francis and Barack Obama display the same leadership style… Thuggery, and a distaste for truth. Both are political mud wrestlers with a less then favorable opinion of America.
I Agree
Is Francis a legitimately elected Pope. Yes.
Does Francis occupy the See of Peter? Yes.
Has Francis sown confusion and disunity in the Church for ten years now? Yes.
Has Francis, in my opinion, surrendered the moral authority to govern the Church? Yes.
L’affaire Strickland is more about the current occupant of the Chair of Peter than anything going on in Tyler, TX.
We are in agreement. Yes, indeed.
Well said Deacon. But its not only his personal moral authority.
In my emotive parallel to the famous NFL coach Jim Mora’s reaction about his team’s chance for the playoffs, my reaction here, in contrast to my previous high opinion of Larry Chapp’s perspectives: Pastoral?!! Pastoral?!!! Pastoral?!!!!
And nothing problematic about Francis doctrinally?! Seriously?! A pope who forcefully and repeatedly has denied immutable truth? A process theologian who recited his agreement with Walter Kasper’s famous screed about a fumbling incomplete God learning through history how to be a good God early in his pontificate? A Pope who unambiguously, not in a “confusing” manner, unambiguously insists that moral “truths” can change over time? A Pope who, early in his pontificate, until advisors convinced him he had to cover himself politically, dismissed concern for abortion as an “obsession”? And even after his lip service in opposition, has taken actions that indirectly render support for abortion throughout the world.
So rare, non-cowardly voices willing to say to the whole world, do not listen to the blatantly evil words of a pope when he says evil things is being out of line? No, it is not!!! The lives of all the babies headed for the mountains of corpses that would not be headed for those piles were Catholic moral witness not being undermined constantly by a fool of a Pope, and quite possibly malicious, are more important than exercising deference to his precious ego.
Brilliantly said, Mr. Baker.
Thank you for your kind words Deacon. Pressed for time, I overlooked adding my point that Francis’ view of “pastoralism and mercy” is merciless towards the victims of sin, where he repeats the favorite practices of wacko moral theologians from the senventies who believed their role was exclusively to find ways to “rethink” what was previously thought to be sinful to contain hidden goods and thereby help everyone to get rid of their God given guilt feelings without the “outdated” burden of remorse, regardless of the damage.
Mr. Baker: and by so-doing, man effectively become his own god thereby making God superfluous in the lives of all. It’s oh so crafty.
I was received into the Church by a very distinguished canon lawyer of unquestioned orthodoxy and great personal holiness. Just last week he said to me that Pope Francis has changed nothing save the law of the Church.
He doesn’t have the authority or right to change anything. But your canon lawyer friend is wrong. Francis has had the CCC changed to reflect his heretical views on capital punishment. Regardless, Francis has been involved in ceaseless and arrogant chatter about all manner of changes he fantasizes the Church should be remade in his image including a complete repudiation of Catholic moral theology to be remade into a subjective “discernment” exercise.
Welcome aboard! Forgive the leaks. No worries, Christ promised we wouldn’t sink. Did you bring any glue?
Consider asking your “distinguished canon lawyer of unquestioned orthodoxy and great personal holiness” if he thinks Pope Francis is using the papacy to bypass the law of the Church to enable pastoral heresies.
Most of the things you mention are indeed troubling. And I stated explicitly in the essay that the Pope’s pastoral strategy is in danger of creating downstream doctrinal effects, which is one big reason why they are troubling. The pope does indeed seem to harbor some heterodox theological views and he has said many things which cannot be interpreted in an orthodox manner. But my larger point is that despite whatever his personal theological views might be, and despite his many dangerous remarks (especially in airplanes it seems), he has not (yet) as I say “crossed the Rubicon” of teaching in a magisterial way formal heresy. I am sure that there have been many popes who harbored bizarre personal theological views, but if they refrain from making them official magisterial teaching then they are not magisterial teaching. I know that is a very low bar for judging Popes! But we should avoid calling the Pope a heretic until he actually teaches heresy on a magisterial level. You might disagree with me that he has not taught heresy magisterially, but that is my view.
I am on the record being very critical of this pope. I think he is a lousy pope. I think he is a dangerous pope. I think he is doing grave harm to the Church. But has he taught heresy magisterially? I do not think so. I know many disagree with that but I remain unconvinced by their arguments. And I stand by my claim that the primary problem, so far, with this Pope resides in his disastrous pastoral decisions which are grounded in a progressive theological outlook.
I also think that those of us who are critical of this Pope need to be careful not to overstate our case and to “keep our powder dry” so the speak for the day when he does teach heresy, if he ever does. But I don’t think he will. If you look at the long list of long sought-after liberal dreams he has not really given them much. He has not changed the teaching on contraception, or the official teaching on homosexuality (including not changing the language to the catechism that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered”), or the teaching on women’s ordination, or even mandatory celibacy for priests. Nor has not given carte blanche magisterial approval to intercommunion with Protestants. I could go on but you get the point. And almost 11 years into this papacy, having made none of these changes, I doubt he ever will. He might personally want to change all of those teachings. But something seems to be keeping him from doing so. The Holy Spirit perhaps? A desire not to create schism? Or to go down in history as the Pope who ruined everything?
Finally, when I was in Rome covering the Synod a very wise and very orthodox priest friend of mine said that we papal critics (of which he is one) need to be careful not to go so “scorched earth” on this Pope lest we destroy the very foundations of the papacy itself. He said to me, “We need to make sure that there is a papal office left, with full authority intact, once this lousy Pope is gone.” I think those are wise words. Which is why, despite my own strong feelings about this disastrous papacy, I try not to overstate my criticisms lest we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Dr. Chapp, here’s my analysis of Francis’ strategy: Pope Francis will promulgate no teaching that is frankly heretical. He goes just so far to skirt the peripheries of heterodoxy but purposefully avoids going over the boundary. When he does this, he is signaling to his conferes in the German hierarchy and elsewhere that they can go ahead and introduce heterodox teaching and praxis and, in response, he will say and do nothing to stop them. As far as critics are concerned, it is they who are substantively changing Church teaching but not he. It’s called plausible deniability (and cowardice). Meanwhile, he will use his authority to silence those who publicly condemn such violations of Church teaching (the bodies are beginning to pile up). My assessment is that Francis will change Church teaching, not by direct ex cathedra statements, but by promoting confusion and disunity in the Church and, at the same time, doing nothing to chastise wayward theologies. He’s nothing if not Machiavellian and deeply sinister.
You are probably not far off the mark here, sad to say.
The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the fact that praxis overwhelms lex credendi, eventually. Just look at what we have in the Novus Ordo. Only through the most bizarre mental gymnastics can one claim to adhere to the liturgical reform that was called for at Vatican II, and end up with the Mass as it is celebrated throughout the world today. Sacrosanctum Concilium was ignored (both the text and the spirit) and bishops, priests and lay liturgists were allowed to concoct whatever they wished to try out. And now, there is no way of ever imagining a return to the Mass as it was experienced and prayed by Catholics for nearly 2,000 years. Now, Francis is trying the same thing with even the most fundamental beliefs of Christian life. He has merely “hinted” that homosexual “unions” can be blessed, that marriage between a man and a woman is not inviolable, that transgenderism exists, that Confession does not require contrition, that the Church herself is not even necessary for salvation! He will create so much room for dissent to flourish that there will be nothing left of the Faith on a universal level. We will have as many Catholic Churches as we have dioceses and parishes. It will matter not one whit that he has made no heretical ex-cathedra statement. He will have legitimized every heresy.
I read once part of the council of Trent document on heresy. I believe I read any person engaging in deceitful and misleading teaching was being a heretic or diene thing quite similar. It said let them be anathema. I posit it applies to pope francis. Cardinal mueller said he has engaged in heresy. What more do we need people!
Ed:
I agree 100%. Sinister is the apt word when “discerning” the Pontiff Francis, and “his team” (as their “teammate” Austen Ivereigh calls them).
“but if they refrain from making them official”
That would fly if we live in the middle ages where people only get to learn of what the Pope believes when it has been dogmatically promulgated.
But we are in tge age of the internet and the evil mess he has created is evident to anyone who cares to read or watch.
The most that can be said is that the Holy Spirit is protecting the Church; stopping his evil and insane beliefs from being promulgated.
Meanwhile he gives courage and fire to the enemies of Christ. I believe because he is himself an enemy of Christ.
Seas and millstones.
Your point of preserving the appearance of integrity in the papacy is valid, but I wonder what is the cost of sweeping scandal under the rug? Our civil war does not only affect Catholics, of whom only a percentage have paid attention to the controversies, yet most have been willing to demonize critics without listening. How the Church projects its self-understanding affects the whole of humanity, exactly as Our Lord intended. And with a Pope not only immersed in secular views about the fungibility of truth but demanding this same understanding for all Catholics as a new foundational principle does exactly what Strickland, and Mueller, and Scheider, and Vigano say it does. It invites the total collapse, not merely another passing scandal, the total collapse of Catholic moral witness.
What Strickland has done will not do damage to the papacy as long as hundreds of other prelates come forward and do the same, telling the world, you were wrong to believe that we believe that our Pope is infallible. We even believe he can be seriously lacking in intelligence. Our concept of infallibility is very limited to extremely rare occasions of settling the disputes of sinfully deluded souls within the Church of whom there are more than many. Everyone is sinful, and sin makes truth haters of us all. It gives everyone foolish and delusional inclinations. It is the one thing that made our Holy Mother sad appearing before Bernadette, and she told Bernadette it is the only thing that brings sadness to God.
Knowing how sin makes the mind dishonest is why we emphasize, especially during the silly season of synods, that creation is never the source of truth. Only our creator is the source of all, not some, not most, but all truth, the same yesterday, today, and forever. Even a Pope can be poorly catechized or have spiritual amnesia, but the Church of Christ does not.
And I apologize for my first remark inferring a decrease of favor for your commentary. When my blood boils, I make mistakes. Your views are always interesting, and they serve the Church.
No need to apologize. These are hot button issues that boil our blood indeed. And that is because we care deeply about our Church. And I think your analysis above is correct. Thanks for taking the time to read the essay and for commenting. Peace.
“…but if they refrain from making them official magisterial teaching then they are not magisterial teaching.”
With all due respect, I am confused. If a Catholic denies part of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, And The Teaching of The Magisterium, he is engaging in heresy, but a Pope, in order to be engaging in heresy must both deny Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, And The Teaching Of The Magisterium and make this denial official Magisterium Teaching?
What about Catholic Canon 750 and 751?
Certainly a Pope must first and foremost “believe what every Catholic must believe with Divine and Catholic Faith.
It isn’t possible for a bishop to teach heresy Magisterially. That would imply that one could use the authority of God to directly oppose God.
Pope Francis has never used extraordinary magisterium, and ordinary magisterium must be in accord with Scripture, Tradition, and past magisterium, so he de facto has not used that to teach heresy either. There has been a Pope who taught heresy from the pulpit, but never one who taught it magisterially, and there never will be.
Obviously the Holy Spirit is holding him back. I would say that God is restraining him well beyond the bare promises regarding the gates of hell. But the confusion he is spreading in both word and deed among non-Catholics and Catholics alike cannot be countered except by clearly and frankly and repetitively pointing those things out as wrong.
Many people will die in that confusion; many will become heretics and take decades to re-examine their beliefs; many already have.
The criticism of this papacy should not be directed toward destroying the structures of the Church (this papacy does enough of that) but toward clearly communicating and acting according to the truth of the Faith. With anger when warranted.
bravo!! you have brilliantly described pope francis. the messy egoist who chooses to listen to those who are making a bigger mess like the Weg and Whoopi and the likes of Grannick and Martin as well as rendering neutral and insignificant the sins “below the belt”. as well as upserting God Himself by proclaiming male and female are no more as trans can be just as much affirmed as anyone else as whoever they wish to be; all nicely packed into the pastoral way of inclusion without responsibility to repent and change lifestyle and false notions of male and female He made us.
Well said, Deacon Edward!
Without published evidence of malfeasance in governance that is serious enough for removal, and without a process for the bishop to defend himself according to canon law, this article is moot and not worth the read.
Agree.
God bless Bishop Strickland.
If only we had more like him.
No more Clapp crapp for me.
That’s unfair. The author is IMO being fair without going into vitriolic ranting about this Pope. Something I often fail to accomplish myself as my disdain for him borders on sinful contempt. I see the Pope’s and my Bishop’s pictures in the back of the Church my blood pressure ticks North.
There is a stern warning to respect the Office and defer to their Divine Authority regardless of our emotional state.
I fail to see the author going too far either way.
And, which is worse? Criticizing the Pope publicly in inflammatory ways (especially for a bishop)—or publicly dissenting from long settled Church teaching on sexual morality and calling for wholesale changes in doctrine?
The Faithful know what is worse …..
The Pope apparently doesn’t.
Well, I understand metaphors but the Bishop Strickland I know is not in any way, shape or form a golem and I think we should cease with dueling blogs and be praying more for each other, united in the Body of Christ.
There really are interests that want to destroy the moral authority of the Church and undermine the morale of the faithful. The last things standing in the way of an all powerful secular state are the Church and the family. Let’s work and pray harder to keep those strong.
With all due respect, Dr. Chapp, I fear you are giving Bergoglio the benefit of a doubt that doesn’t exist.
You say, “Bishop Strickland erred greatly in many ways.”
Um, how? By posting impolitic social media boops? By expressing disagreement with the pope’s muddy thinking and divisive comments?
Technically, you may be right. But compare and contrast this offense — holding the pope to account — with those of McElroy, Hollerich, Cupich, Martin and the rest. Men whom Bergoglio has elevated to cardinal and/or brought into his inner circle.
These men have actually undermined the Church’s authority and encouraged people to sin by publicly disputing the Judeo-Christian teachings on sexuality. They have brought disunity to the flock and turned Catholics against one another.
And yet they are constantly being rewarded, encouraged, promoted and lionized.
By comparison, these supposed shortcomings of Bishop Strickland’s look like virtues.
I’m afraid, Dr. Chapp, that I have to agree with the Babylon Bee on this one:
“Pope Francis Fires Bishop For Being Too Catholic.”
in case y9u missed it I mentioned explicitly in the essay that there is a problem of a double standard being applied here. I mentioned the dissenting view of liberal bishops that Pope Francis has not only not disciplined, but promoted. And I said at the end that Bishop Strickland “probably” did not deserve to be deposed. I said “probably” because we do not have all the facts which was one of the main points of the essay. The Vatican”s lack of transparency. I also mentioned that we simply do not know whether Bishop Strickland’s public comments about the Pope were the decisive factor in his dismissal. Again… we just do not know.
Dr. Chapp, you have no bigger fan, not least because you have the acuity of a philosopher’s mind. However, the Barque is on fire. Bp Strickland is calling all hands on deck. We need to support him even if he has the nerve to sound the alarm indelicately, while hands are asleep in the dead of night below deck.
St. G, you must be referring to the laity asleep below deck. The Bishops are wide awake, at meetings.
Is it “indelicate” to observe that the Bishops show no concern about a flaming Barque?
Praying for rain…
You have said “Bishop Strickland erred greatly in many ways.”
And you have said “Bishop Strickland “probably” did not deserve to be deposed.”
Was the first statement just an ambiguous ‘everyone messes up somehow’ criticism with nothing solid?
“Bishop Strickland called me on the phone to discuss the matter and said he was pondering signing it. After some thought I sent him an email in which I politely, but firmly, said no and told him that “with all due respect I did not wish to be associated with his brand of traditionalism.”
I think your response to Strickland says it all. You didn’t want him to sign it for the same reasons Francis wanted him out. Just like you didn’t want his name associated with your manifesto, the pope didn’t want Strickland’s “brand” associated with the Church. The great difference being that the pope has the power to remove a bishop who has promoted the same wackiness you avoided by keeping his name off the manifesto. You are both removing the voice for the same reasons. Why you defend him is curious at best, since you didn’t want him to begin with. It was a wise move on your part to keep him off. The pope had the same wisdom and the power to remove his harmful voice.
Should have been “Pope Fires Bishop for Being More Catholic Than the Pope” maybe.
Playing footsie with sedevacantism is not Catholic.
Anon,
I think you insinuated the same thing in another article’s comments under a different username. It’s neither factual nor charitable.
And in both cases with no examples to support the accusation.
that’s a good one
Pope fires bishop for insisting we follow Christ and not his anti-Christian beliefs
Corollary could also be true -in a sense it WOULD the truth: if “troubles” in Tyler are neither uncommon nor unusual nor needing a deposing or replacement.
Parallel situations would make better comparison/contrast: some Ordinaries are doing absurd things and absurd neglects with complaints not even acknowledged.
You can’t just have yes men even in this church set up that way. In fact, isn;t it in the Bible to call out your fellow Shepherds if they are straying from their mission?
Id like to ask the writer: How is a Bishop or priest to criticize the Pope? Can he ever?? Are you saying that a Bishop or priest is prohibited from criricizing the Pope if he were to , for example, bless same sex marriages? Thats not a wild hypothetical. Would it be hard right to criticize the Pope if the hard left Pope said that??
Did you even read the essay? I mentioned in a lengthy paragraph my own criticisms of this pope. And they are criticisms that some bishops have also made. Nowhere in the essay did I say or even imply that a bishop can never criticize the pope. But there are ways to disagree with the pope and ways not to. I think Bishop Strickland chose the latter path. But we can agree to disagree on that.
“We stand opposed to the sexual revolution, but have compassion, not hatred, for souls led astray by LGBT ideology.”
It is not Loving or Merciful and thus compassionate to dismiss the physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual harmful nature of same sex sexual relationships and thus same-sex sexual acts that are the result of the sexual revolution that is grounded in the sexual objectification of the human person. To be compassionate is to desire only that which is Good, Beautiful, And True for your beloved. If you truly stand opposed to the sexual revolution, you would be appalled and frightened by this statement of Apostasy because the end goal of the atheist materialist overpopulation alarmist globalist is the objectification of the human person and the denial of the Sanctity of human life.
“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, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, while denying sin done in private is sin.
CARDINAL MULLER about Pope Francis removing Bishop Strickland:
Yes, what is being done to Bishop Strickland is terrible, an abuse of the divine right of the episcopate.
If I could advise Mgr Strickland, he absolutely should not resign, because then they could wash their hands of their innocence.
According to the commandment of justice, a bishop can only be deposed by the Pope if he has been guilty of something evil (heresy, schism, apostasy, crime or totally non-sacerdotal behavior), for example the pseudo-benediction that insults God and deceives people about their salvation – blessing people of both or the same sex in extramarital relationships.
“Erred greatly in many ways”. This article doesn’t make that case convincingly. It points to a couple of imprudent tweets. (Granted, the “letter from a friend” was particularly imprudent). The author needs to cite more public instances or the “many ways” Bishop Strickland has erred.
I noticed that as well and am glad you’ve asked for clarification – because the conclusion was not really supported by the story
e.g., did he refuse to grant annulments or something
Larry,
The pope just created a Saint and martyr by his action against Bushol Strickland
Saint and martyr? God have mercy, what nonsense.
Good heavens, what nonsense. Strickland is hardly a martyr.
What frustrates me with our dear Pope is that he wishes to use Papal power to punish, but not teach, admonish in the faith and foster salvation. His agenda appears earth-bound, immanent, and irrelevant vis-a-vis salvation. But, when he wants to he crawls back into the Chair of Peter and uses his authority as a bully pulpit. He reminds me of a confused protestant cherry picking his way through scripture to mold for himself some version of things that’s neither whole nor healthy. When it comes to the truths of the church he seems only willing to cherry pick, yet he fully expects to exercise the fulness of papal power. Silly me. I thought his authority actually rested on his commitment to tried and true Catholic doctrine; that real authority is commensurate to ones commitment to the dogmas of the faith.
Dr. Chapp, I’m curious: just what is your opinion of St. Paul’s correction of St. Peter “to his face”? I also wonder which side of the Strickland/Francis argument would St. Paul be on?
I can’t speak for St. Paul. But where in my essay did I say or imply that a bishop can never correct the pope? I listed in the essay my own criticisms of this pope and I know many bishops who have voiced similar concerns. Just because I am not a fan of the manner in which Bishop Strickland criticized the pope does not imply that therefore all episcopal criticisms of a pope are wrong. I think Bishop Strickland’s criticisms were imprudent and over the top. But I have seen criticisms from other bishops which were more sober and, therefore, much more effective.
I have read all 40 volumes of the History of the Popes. There have been some really terrible popes. The Mystical Body goes on and the work of the salvation of souls never ends. I am no one’s judge, especially a pope. As an historian, my experience has been that we cannot make a judgment on a papacy until we can see, perhaps centuries later, its historical consequences.
Thank you for the clarification. I better understand your perspective.
Deacon Jerry: that common anti-Pope Francis argument using the narrative in Galatians of Paul rebuking Peter to justify bashing the Pope does not align with what the Bible actually says. Paul did not criticize Peter over doctrinal matter but about Peter’s hypocritical behavior and conduct in refusing to join Gentile Christians at table. Bashers of Pope Francis criticize him for his doctrinal positions and his authority to teach these. Besides, critics of Pope Francis do not have the moral and spiritual standing of Paul.
I do not like your take on the Bishop Strickland situation. I get it that you do not like him.
It is not that I do not “like” Bishop Strickland. It is that I disagree with his imprudent remarks. I think there were better ways to voice criticisms of the Pope. But you are most free not to like my take on things. It is a controversial issue and there are many points of view on this!
Maybe he is trying to save a soul?
Well said, Larry. I would add, the team that P Francis has selected to be around him is likely not helping matters. A piece on the inner circle and their backgrounds would be interesting to see how they line up.
Charles
This is not Bishop Strickland’s fault. When a Pope as far LEFT as PF is elevated – everyone slightly orthodox is going to appear extreme. It’s the Theory of Relativity in reverse. The same phenomena happened when Barrack Obama was elected. All people to his right, even slightly, became considered extreme, quite honestly, because the man was so far LEFT that he became his own center of the universe. I feel for PF. His “authority” is no longer rooted. He has uprooted the Truths of the faith, challenged them, pushed them out, malformed them. Yet, his own authority rests on his capacity to protect, guard, and pass them on. He’s quickly becoming irrelevant. Using his Papal power merely to push a modernist agenda in the manner of a bully pulpit akin to the WEF and NWO is demeaning and pointless. The next pope will suffer the worse for it. If I were a betting man, I’d hedge my bet on the fact that the Pope is the perfect product of the “modern” age: he’s a revolutionary man not unlike the Jacobian, a thorough-going materialist, an immanentist with a generous sprinkle of communism/socialism and pragmatism.
Yes good to read his views. My view is that this Pope is the false prophet of the book of Revelations and will meet his end as given in Revelations 19 : 20.
Strong Prayers.
The article appears to be written well, where are the lawyers, that helped us get the Mass back, and fought to get the Lefebvre Bishops excommunication lifted. Where is American Lawyers? Strickland needs to have an appeal, along with other bishops and priests being unjustly removed when you may have an injustice. The writer is also a Catholic worker, and he owns the farm, that’s confusing.. I was raised in a Catholic Worker home, and lived on the farm in Marlboro, NY from my understanding no one owns the catholic worker???
Most Catholic Worker farms are in fact owned by individuals and not a collective group. In fact, the farm in Marlboro you mentioned, which I have visited, was “owned” by the late Tom Cornell. Many people may live on the farms and the world and life is shared collectively, but most of them are indeed individually owned.
Thank you for clarifying that.. I did not know. Hopefully some day we will meet.. God Bless you
If, as the Pope said, making a mess is a good thing, why would it be necessary to clean it up later?
A voice in the wilderness assumes the danger of retribution rather than safe passage. There are too many reasons for justified dismissal as there are reasons for Bishop Strickland’s retention of his diocesan appointment. Justice seems a moot issue, although the danger for a bishop ordained to address the truth to withhold what he conscientiously believes is necessary for the salvation of souls, those in his personal charge as well as the universal Church is a compelling rationale for Strickland’s perceived impropriety. In the end it’s God who is pleased or displeased.
Catherine of Siena comes to mind insofar as antagonism between a Roman pontiff and his charge. Catherine wasn’t a bishop, which seems to have afforded her greater leeway. Rationale for decisions that exceed propriety would be justified by the measure of gravity addressed. A Synodal Church increasingly modeled after the German Synodaler Weg does, in this writer’s judgment reach that measure.
https://youtu.be/1Sax6vriFAs?si=SoET4KjD-MVP5o5o
The pastoral good news approach without the bad news that we need to repent makes a welcoming church sterile from the mission that it was sent to proclaim for the salvation of people!
Correct Bryan. Christ’s call to repent is essential to revelation and the requirement for salvation. It cannot be omitted from what Christ teaches without a betrayal of Christ.
Fr. Peter: St. Catherine of Sienna did not criticize the Pope over doctrinal matters the way Bishop Strickland did. She was engaging the Pope over governance and reform issues especially about the Pope returning to Rome from Avignon. Besides, the saint showed loyalty and respect for the Pope while dealing with him, whereas the bishop simply behaved and conducted himself in the opposite manner.
If you research her letters you will discover that she also voiced disapproval of policies that neglected Christ’s appointed mission that a Roman pontiff defend the true faith and salvific welfare of the people.
Fr. Peter: Yes, indeed. St. Catherine of Sienna only engaged the Pope over governance and reform matters like as you mentioned regarding the papacy’s role and mission in the light of Christ’s mission. She never disloyally and disrespectfully bashed the Pope in public for his orthodoxy the way Bishop Strickland did. Above all, the bishop does not have the spiritual and moral gravitas of the saint. Contrasting the bishop to the saint is illogical and misplaced.
Mr Smith, Catherine didn’t have access to instagram, Twitter, texting, or facebook. Letters were standard for communication. That her extant letters were preserved indicates others read and compiled them. Her trips to Avignon, and the return of pontiffs to Rome was known. An example of her ‘offensive’ language in comparison to Bishop Strickland is shown here. I haven’t heard where Strickland cursed Pope Francis. A letter to Pope Gregory XI:
“Since [Christ] has given you authority and you have accepted it, you ought to be using the power and strength that is yours. If you don’t intend to use it, it would be better and more to God’s honor and the good of your soul to resign … If I were in your place, I would be afraid of incurring divine judgment.” Later in her letter she continued, “Cursed be you, for time and power were entrusted to you and you did not use them!” (Sr. Suzanne Noffke’s Letters of Saint Catherine of Siena, Vol. 1-4). There’s more including her questioning his manhood. You’re welcome to have the last word.
Last I heard, calling a spade a bloody shovel was not a sin, but only a diplomatic faux pas…I find this article very much only one of false equivalence. I should like to hear Dr. Chapp’s CORRECT telling of The Emperor’s New Clothes, but expect it would not be nearly as effective.
You should peruse my essays on this platform. There are many, many essays that I have written over the past two years that are highly critical of Pope Francis. In fact, I have lost friends who have accused me of being too critical of the pope. And of you cannot see that this essay too contains some trenchant criticisms of the pope I do not know what to say. And at the end of the essay I say that Bishop Strickland “probably” should not have been deposed. I think there are better ways that the “pope of dialogue, listening and accompaniment” could have handled this.
Under discussion is THIS article and no other. Far more properly respectful and diplomatic high ranking clergy have been exiled by Francis, where tact did them no good at all, and their opposition to “the program” was just as public, only more polite.
There is no defense for this removal of a bishop to date, and brashness is by no means just cause, where you seem to agree that it is. “Just because” somebody can do something, does not mean that they should, especially when it indefensible, at which point it is a moral wrong. Calling a brash and blount man a golem was tasteless considering the man speaks muchly the truth with very few errors. That irked me.
Thank you Dr. Chapp for your excellent presentation. The Church needs a lot of prayers and if the leadership were really interested in the salvation of souls, they would cease the political pandering and turn to the primordial and necessary reflection on the Kerygma of our Lord, “The Kingdom of God is at hand. Reform your lives and believe in the Gospels.” That statement requires a lifetime of reflection and it is on VERY few minds right now, sadly.
“Bishop Strickland called me on the phone to discuss the matter and said he was pondering signing it. After some thought I sent him an email in which I politely, but firmly, said no and told him that “with all due respect I did not wish to be associated with his brand of traditionalism.” He was polite in response, said “Thank you”, and that was that.”
So–What’s wrong with Bishop Strickland’s “brand of traditionalism”?
Perhaps it’s not what he stands for as much as the way he operates.
Not communio’ed enough, too old fashioned, not resourced enough, too brittle, too stale, too fossilized? The goodness of the man was missed because of rose-colored glasses for all that is brave, new, and cool?
Raymond B. Marcin,
Chapp refuses to answer your legitimate question, and I believe he cannot do so without revealing a serious problem in his own theology in rejecting Bishop Strickland’s “brand of traditionalism.”
I recently came across a most insightful interview of a person (Deacon Keith Fournier) who really knows Bishop Strickland, and he paints a picture of the good Bishop that is much different than the false one painted by Chapp and Altieri in another Catholic World Report article.
You can find the interview on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkdoXevkymM&t=1010s
Your column should be renamed: Musings from an Ivory Barn.
Your rejection of Bishop Strickland is no surprise. It serves to shed light on why virtually all of Strickland’s episcopal peers turned their backs on him. He is an embarrassment to how they view themselves.
“Can a man who’s warm understand one who’s freezing?” (Solzhenitsyn)
I only wish I had an ivory barn. In my dreams. Ours is a ramshackle old wooden thing built in 1899. And since you do not know me I do not understand how you can know the particulars of my day to day life and therefore how “shielded” I am from reality or how “elitist” and out touch I am. You can disagree with me all you want, and many apparently do, but to make statements about my character or mental disposition is strange coming from someone who does not know me in the slightest or what my life is like or what my entire career has been devoted to.
Bishop Strickland has a “form of traditionalism” that is polite and gracious when rejected, judged and misunderstood – even by a Pope!
Well put! Much to consider. Don’t see any way out until the next Pope. May God help him!
It is NOT problematic that the orthodox faithful deal “…with every penultimate “issue” …as an instance of ultimacy and pressed upon us as something of dire importance.”
Each issue is not minor because Rome’s choosing to take issue reveals its breathtaking audacity, hypocrisy, obfuscation and quashing of charity, and undermining of the Church of Christ, His Bride, of 2,000 years.
We recall the words of Christ—-no one knows the hour or the day we shall be called to account for our deeds, our acts of mercy, of forgiveness, of gentleness, meekness, humility, courage, and LOVE. The time for mercy will end. Justice shall be rendered.
The story does not end happily for everyone… some may choose to deny or will not countenance that there is tragedy and comedy, heaven and hell, good and bad on the earth as well as in the afterlife.
Jesus claimed Woe to those by whom scandal is given to His little ones. Some in Rome have chosen to trade the cornerstone for that of the mill, and we who SEE that SAY something about it. For the Sake of Christ, for our salvation and those who need reminding or rebuking.
With all respect, and firmly stating that in many ways I think your piece is well written and captures much of the problems with how our Pope has handled Bishop Strickland. I particularly appreciated your acknowledgment that this entire situation begs the question, why “fire” Bishop Strickland for his views critical of just a Pope, just a man, while elevating those whose views go against 2000 years of Christian teaching (paraphrasing)?. But, I have to ask, why do you not like Bishop Strickland’s “brand of traditionalism”?
This is a good piece and I agree with much of it, but there is one phrase that stands out like a sore thumb – the phrase “Radical Catholic right”. To me such a phrase implies that those of us who strongly disagree with much of what the Pope has done and continues to do are members of this so-called ‘Radical Catholic Right’. This is simply not true.
I am a traditional Catholic. I strongly believe in the Church’s teachings. Two of today’s hot-button issues – I oppose abortion & same-sex unions. I go to Mass every week and on Holy Days and, when I can, weekday Mass. I try to get to the Latin Mass in Lewiston as often as I can. I strongly disagree with much of what this Pope is doing and occasionally speak out here against it, which is my right. These normal activities do NOT make me a member of what the author refers to as the “Radical Catholic right” and I must admit that this is the first place in which I have seen the phrase used. I think that Mr. Chapp should be more careful with such a phrase – things are stirred up enough already, and IMO using such a phrase serves no real purpose.
If, however, Mr. Chapp continues using this phrase – he should define it. If Mr. Chapp is implying that people like me with our traditional beliefs have moved further to the right, and this is simply not true. What has happened is this – those on the other side have moved further to the left, they know it and – what better way to disguise this than to accuse us of it?
Which tactic is one of the favorites of Saul Alinsky.
A good point. It is hard in such a short piece to use “shorthand” terminology that is loaded with differing meanings. I do not have the time right now to go into full taxonomy of the Catholic world, but suffice it to say for now that traditionalists like you are not who I meant.
Thank you.
We will get through this.
Thank you for sharing that Terence. I hadn’t thought about it that way but yes, I keep growing increasingly more conservative only because the center keeps moving to the left. I haven’t changed one bit but the dial has been moved.
The Church seems much like the world in this respect. Bill Maher and Dave Rubin have always believed what they do now. However with them standing still and the left moving further left than Marx those two now seem like conservatives.
Thank you, friend.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Why is everyone upset? Strickland will have exactly what he wanted: to live off the fumes of his own farts on talk shows, blogs, and radio for the rest of his life, preferably while grifting traditional catholics out of their money.
“Good riddance to bad rubbish.”
Keeping it classy, as always.
A degree of class worthy of the ex-bishop!
He’s not an “ex-bishop”. Try to keep up.
Thank you for linking to the OSV article. My pastor is in a four-summer program at CUA to become a canon lawyer, and I am sure he will find this of interest.
Mea culpa, it’s hard to keep up with this website when it makes up new conspiracies every day! I will do a novena, make a pilgrimage to mother Angelica’s grave, and listen to the 40 hours of collected youtube videos of Fr. Altman as penance.
If you act like an ass, don’t be surprised if someone kicks you in the butt.
Couldn’t put it better, won’t even try.
Thanks
Charity in all things, eh?
He’ll have good company in “Francis-Resign” Archbishop Vigano and their acolyte in “Kill-Francis” Father Altman. The bishop can have the battle cry tagline as the “Fake-Pope” Bishop Strickland.
Do they have any association with false-witness A Smith?
Dr. Chapp nails the main point here. When the Pope simply removes a bishop– or anyone else– without explanation, everyone is left to wonder what the real issue was. It’s this sort of stonewalling that has to go. The dignity of the office of bishop demands a reasonable explanation. But none will be forthcoming, just as Theodore McCarrick was laicized without a public trial, just as Frank Pavone was laiczied for “disobedience,” and just as Father Rupnik will most likely be laicized without comment, explanation, repentence, or public trial.
Having enjoyed many of Larry Chapp’s articles on CWR I was somewhat surprised by this one. I would put it in the category of, “On the one hand this, but on the other hand that,” articles. Well, yes, the pope did this, but then Bishop Strickland said that. The pope did that, but then Bishop said this.
I have to say that the statements that the pope has said and done things with bad pastoral implications, but no real doctrinal errors has gotten a little old. Even if we take that to be true, (i.e. numerous meetings and positive statements with pro-abortion guests and appointees) what he says and does has serious doctrinal implications.
If I were to look for a bishop that reflects the Apostle Paul in the United States, I would pick Bishop Strickland.
If I may paraphrase Joshua, “As for me and my family, we will follow Bishop Strickland.”
I’d prefer to follow the pope. Strickland played footsie with sedevacantists, which alone disqualifies him.
I stated explicitly in the article that his pastoral decisions do have doctrinal implications. But I stand by my claim that he has not yet taught heresy on a formal magisterial level.
I agree that he hasn’t articulated heresy doctrinally but I think that is studied ambiguity to fend off the more orthodox in the ranks.
I have recently realized a new category I had never had to consider before this Pope. I would loosely term it pastoral heresy. That’s where with your words you stay within the boundaries of orthodoxy but with your actions and failures to clearly articulate settled Truths you implicitly promote heresy.
That’s a more nuanced judgement call which I also think is carefully calculated to provide cover and maybe even deliberately sow division.
Yes, you have cracked the code of this pope’s Jesuit-speak. The poison is fed to the faithful in vague word salad doses. But fed it is, indeed.
I don’t think your characterization of Bishop Strickland is entirely fair. One only has to listen to him for five minutes to know he is a man completely without guile. I have found him to be very Christ-centred, often encouraging his listeners to hold fast to the Church, despite the turmoil in which we live. It is ironic that you characterize him using political categories (“his brand of traditionalism”, “radical Catholic Right” sympathizer, etc). Isn’t it precisely this “ascendancy of a narrowly political view of the church” at the expense of the church’s, primary mission ( to make present the Living Christ) that you find “deeply troubling“ about the current papacy? You acknowledge, that its lack of transparency, double standards, heavy-handed autocracy, and “studied ambiguity and selective use of silence“, among other things, may, in the end, have theological and doctrinal consequences. Sounds to me like a program of undermining the Deposit of the Faith, even if it hasn’t yet crossed the Rubicon. So the guileless bishop said out loud what we all know.
Excellently statement of truth as I and many see it too. Thank you.
I’m my view, Dr Chapp still hasn’t figured out what time it is. Admittedly, he finally came around to acknowledging that PF is a “liar” and a “morally bad man” (his words) in his most recent podcast, but he is still in denial about what is at stake here. He refuses to go so far as to say that PF is a heretic (whether formal or material). I suppose I can understand that, even if his Eminence Cardinal Muller, former head of the Holy Office, recently deigned acknowledge that PF has “uttered many material heresies.” Dr Chapp can speak for himself, but his writing comes off as though he feels the Church is not facing an existential crisis, but rather that this is all just a case of bad governance and seedy ecclesial politics; just a case of a stupid pastoral strategy and corrupt leadership that can all be mended at some point down the line, albeit with great harm done in the meantime. He has not been able to get to the point of seeing that the essence of the faith itself, its very survival, is at stake. The difference between him and me (us?) is that he has not (yet?) been thrown into a crisis of faith by this pontificate because he does not (yet?) see it as potentially bringing down the entire house. I wish I had his confidence (faith), but I don’t.
Dr. Chapp points out some good things about this case but I think falls just short. Fundamentally, the difference between Strickland and the German bishops (or Schneider) is that Strickland started to question the power/ authority of Pope Francis. In this pontificate (and in other pontificates in the history of the Church), you can be a liberal, progressive, conservative, or traditionalist (somehow Francis has been the kindest pope to the SSPX) so long as you don’t overtly question power/ authority. Strickland is a prominent bishop in the USA, his words carry weight and had to be removed. I don’t buy the “bad governance” argument because why did it take so long for someone like Bishop Stika to be removed? Why are mediocre bishops allowed to be in charge for so long UNTIL they either abuse someone or question the power of the institution. It’s not a question of right/ wrong here (Strickland could have deserved this or not) but a question of power. German bishops flaunt their disregard for traditional sexual ethics but would never, in a million years, engage in the kind of rhetoric Strickland has been dabbling in.
I did not say that I “buy” the bad governance argument as the main cause for the dismissal. I said it has to be considered as one of the factors. I also said that it might be the case that his criticisms of the Pope are the primary cause of his demotion. The fact of the matter is that we just do not know because the Vatican has not been transparent as to the reasons. And that is one of the main points of my essay. We need transparency from the Vatican and until we do we can speculate all we want but we also need to hold our fire just a bit until all the facts are known.
Let’s assume that Rome were to come forward and in the name of transparency, proffer their side of the story and reason for demoting Stricland. At this point in the history of this papacy, would we give it credence? Instead, we’d likely look for malicious ulterior motives. Persons engaging in habitually vicious actions for long periods of time do not typically or easily or quickly convert, barring a miracle. We too have habituated.
I wasn’t saying that you “bought” it (if it sounded like that I apologize) but merely that I don’t think it holds water when looking at the landscape of the Church in general/ past cases. Until something fundamentally changes in how the Church is governed under Pope Francis, the “bad governance” argument will never seem more than a cover/ front for other reasons.
I am going to share something that I posted on “X”. I associate with a number of Catholics who are “orthodox”. But many of them don’t know what “Rad Trad” or FSSP means. None of them attends the Latin Mass. Some are involved in social justice ministries like SVDP and prison ministry. Some are charismatic. While they are not big fans of Pope Francis, they never speak disrespectfully of him. In short, they are not extreme traditionalists. Yet I have heard from a number of them who are angry and depressed at Bishop Strickland’s dismissal. It is wrong to think that Strickland only appealed to far-right Catholics. My friends and I saw him as a Bishop who was Christ-centered and wasn’t afraid to defend the traditional teachings of the Church. As for myself, Dr. Chapp, I’ve even read a few books by Hans Urs von Balthasar.
Thanks for your perspective Larry…I enjoy all your articles…regarding bshp Strickland I err on his side because of the message it sends…sometimes it is not good to take a middle of the road position..a message sometimes needs to be sent forcefully and not end with the pope can do what he wants….yes he can but he is wrong….that stance shou l d be taken to send a clear message of dissent so that future prophetic and corrective utterances can be made by our bishops and cardinals without fear of retaliation by any pope now and in the future…..I also ask like other commentators what grave sin was committed by the good bishop that required his firing…..
Dr. Chapp, I have long enjoyed reading your articles and continue to be grateful for your contributions here and elsewhere. I approach the topic from the outside the Church; as a non-Catholic that is studying and serious about conversion. However, pope Francis is one of the main stumbling blocks for me. When he speaks, confusion abounds, the spirit is disrupted, and Tradition appears to have become irrelevant.
My spiritual background was built on prophets, apostles, and scriptural doctrine. I hold the scriptures sacred and key to expanding our relationship with God the Father and His Son through the Holy Spirit.
This article was diplomatic, and I admire that effort. Thank you. Yet, for me, Bergoglio words and actions are anathema. His actions against Saint John Paul II and the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI go too far. These are men I have studied and admired and have been helpful gateways to the faith of the Church.
From CBS News:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUUAtie7zdc
Naturally, the only interviewee was from the National Catholic Reporter, although some media outlets will occasionally invite someone from Commonweal. Note, however, the reporter’s comparison of how the case would have been handled under JP II, in contrast to the current successor. I wonder if that’s what he writes in NCR?
“for in those days JESUS CHRIST WILL SEND THEM NOT A TRUE PASTOR, BUT A DESTROYER.” –Saint Francis
It is important to note that this statement is consistent with the philosophy of those who dismiss the physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual harmful nature of “private” sin and is the main philosophy behind the sexual revolution which has led to the denial of the Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament Of Holy Matrimony and the denial of the Sanctity of human life from the moment of conception and thus is an apostasy from God’s Truth from The Beginning.
Truth begets Truth, while error begets error, and what we are witnessing in this moment of Salvational History is the denial of the essence of being a beloved son or daughter from the moment of conception, and thus the denial of The Sanctity of human life.
The Battle over “Marriage and The Family” is The Battle over The Sanctity of human life.
“If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected.”
CCC: CCC II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN
“1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”121
1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125
1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate’s cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas’ betrayal – so bitter to Jesus, Peter’s denial and the disciples’ flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.”
It is a sin to accomodate an occasion of sin, and thus cooperate with evils.”
I agree with Dr. Chapp, Bishop Strickland did sort of step on his on toes so to speak and Pope Francis has brought much confusion in the Church. But if the laity could vote between Strickland and Francis for pope I vote Strickland.
The Pope seems quite fond of firing clergy with little to no warning because he is offended they do not agree with something he has spontaneously burped out. He has failed to have a frank discussion that such might happen if they do not toe his line. I think that would be a minimal effort on his part. Or is he too busy chatting up the likes of Joe Biden and Whoopie Goldberg?? We dont have so many clergy to spare that he should be firing priests/bishops who don’t admire his odd brand of “anything goes” catholicism. I admire the courage of Strickland. He refused suggestions to resign, thus depriving the Pope of a phony “cover” for forcing the Bishop’s ouster. Francis has to bear responsibility for this firing, and a little more light on Vatican skullduggery cannot hurt.That it makes Francis look very thin skinned and petty goes without saying.Now that Francis has given the ok for Trans folk to be role model Godparents (!!!) , I wait breathless to see if he also plans to OK gay marriage, adultery, threesomes and other sexual perversions. What he has chosen is a morality-free slippery slope regarding sexuality. I hope the people of Tyler will vote with their wallets.
I’m late on posting a response, but hope that Prof Chapp knows my view that he does a fine job of itemizing the autocratic ways in which Pope Francis deals with his subordinates. And in my view, Chapp provides yet more data to support the belief, as some have stated before, that Pope Francis is a “dictator pope”, a man who gives not even justice to his supposed enemies. But Chapp curiously casts Strickland as a leper. But I ask, why is Strickland an untouchable. Is Strickland that far off target in his statements? Isn’t he more like the little boy who observes out loud that the dictator/pope has no clothes? Has Strickland said things that are outrageous, or have no factual basis, in his criticisms of the Pope? For example, has Strickland accused the Pope of “sinning against the Holy Spirit” as Fr Weinandy seemed to suggest all the way back in 2016. Or has Strickland called Francis a “bully” as Cdl Muller said just a few days ago? Or has Stickland asserted that the Francis pontificate was “a disaster” as stated by Cdl Pell. And isn’t Strickland on solid ground when he observes that Francis seems to subvert much of the work of Benedict (on the Mass) and JP2 in the area of family, sex, and divorce. As an example, and perhaps i have missed it, but of the entire 250+ pages of Amoris Laetitia, Francis references the Catechism a mere two times on sexual morality–to be sure, in AL Francis references JP2 and P6 numerous times about the importance of conjugal love, but by my reading, Francis studiously avoids all the hot-button issues in Al, and gives a nod to divorce. Disciples of Benedict and JP2 would find Strickland on target when he criticizes Francis…. and this is why he was sacked.
I did not cast him as a leper. I merely voiced disapproval of his imprudent comments. I also ended the essay by saying that Strickland “probably” should not have been removed from office.
There’s something that amazes foreign born Catholics about the emphasis of ideological issues in American Catholicism. While abortion is abhorrent to all of us, clinging on to guns and shooting at people.seems acceptable and sinless to these ideological Catholics. If only they show anger and strong condemnation of this sinful way of life, then their case about hatred for abortion and its sinfulness would have been strongly embraced. Anything to the contrary appears so hypocritical, because both are loathing before God.
I don’t cling to my guns. They would leave oil stains on the sheets. As for the rest of your ranting mischaracterization of your perceived targets of contempt, it is neither coherent nor persuasive.
Dr Chapp seems to be at pains in this article to point out that everyone is in the wrong, and that he has a more elevated perspective. Some of his assertions (as other commenters have noted) are not justified and commenters have argued well on those points. I think what I find most unsettling is Dr Chapp’s determination always to have the last word. I counted 8 responses Dr. Chapp made to those who commented on his expressed views. It is not necessary – or very edifying – to have the last word on everything.
Mr Chapp,
Thank you for this article and for all your work, which I admire greatly and always look forward to reading.
Having said that, I must add that, as I have said previously in commenting on another CWR piece, I stand with Bishop Strickland in this controversy.
It seems to me he had said and continues to say what needs to be said about Pope Francis, the mess he has made and those he appoints and empowers who seek to substitute their own beliefs for the Gospel.
Has Bishop Strickland gone too far with his public comments? I recently came across the following quote:
“Wherefore, O man, you who sit in the Papal throne, you despise God when you embrace evil. For in failing to speak out against the evil in your company, you are certainly not rejecting evil. Rather, you are kissing it.”
This, of course, was not a Bishop Strickland quote. Rather it was in a letter to Pope Anastasius IV from St. Hildegard, a canonized saint and Doctor of the Church. Do it seems to me that Bishop Strickland’s justified criticisms of Pope Francis and his acolytes have sound precedent in the history of the Church.
It seems that the consensus among many is that Francis is partly culpable for the dismissal of Bishop Strickland, but that Strickland was asking for it with his “inflammatory” comments. It might be helpful to consider the sort of things (and they are so many to choose from) that have triggered the strong criticism that we are being told went too far. To pick a few related examples from the recent past, Pope Francis has openly expressed support for legal recognition of unnatural same-sex unions, has stated that the “families” of such couples should be welcome at Catholic parishes (which more than strongly implies that he thinks that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children) and that such people are qualified to be godparents. What exactly should the reaction of a Catholic bishop (or any Catholic) be to such outrages? Pretending that he didn’t say what everyone plainly heard? Putting absurd spins on them to claim the comments are perfectly orthodox? Accepting them as new developments in Church doctrine? Expressing mild and respectful concern and asking for “clarification” -which either never comes or merely repeats what was already said – of the Holy Father’s meaning? After more than a decade of this ongoing attempt to destroy the Church from within, inflammatory rhetoric is the only appropriate response.
Never read much on this site. Came with some interest to this article through a link. Seems like a psyop against traditionalists, with a tepid intellectualism in a word salad. Probably won’t stop in again.
It’s a good, solid Catholic site Wendell but occasionally there might be an article that doesn’t resonate with you. That’s the way most things are in life.
Give CWR another try.
God bless!
As I have to tell folks once in a while, if you come to CWR to find 100% agreement, you’ll be disappointed. Ever as editor, I don’t always agree with what we post. But we never post anything that I do not believe reflects and comes from a reasonable, authentic, and sincere Catholic perspective.
Any journal that tolerates me is indeed quite tolerant of blunt criticism. Thank you, Mr. Olson. You do a very fine job at CWR.
Mr Chap, I have been unfamiliar with your work but, found your article fair to both sides of issue and quite informative. I have been troubled as a devout Catholic with Pope Francis’s style of leadership because, it seems to make me and other Catholics not feel apart the church he projects. Something I haven’t read is there seems to be a mysterious side to him that projects a love of all verbally and then a distaste for others in small quips and in behind the scene action. This all while never owning any of it. We read of the apostles that they each brought a distinct style and charism to make up what I believe Jesus wanted to create to lead his church. Each man possessing gifts and faults but, a brilliance that complements his bride our beloved church. What I am troubled about is that it seems our pontiff is intolerant of a certain style that Bishop Strickland expresses. A style of unapologetic clarity on what the church has always taught in and out of season—Truth. Not grey area platitudes to make people like you. I like you would like some clarity on this issue so I don’t harbor these thoughts as to what is going on in my church. I pray for clarity and for all those struggling with this to stay loyal to our one holy Catholic Church.
If only they had listened to Kolvenbach.
Mr Chapp, sorry, but one has to share, you seem to be secure in your own infallibility, not just here but in your articles in general – you ‘humbly’ think you are always right and that heaven is applauding your presentation of the way things are…please soften or humble your presentation and absence of infallibility, german panzer tanks are not the way…thank you and blessings…
If you can bring back prelates removed for great evils, you can keep Bishop Strickland (Burke et al)….this is a no-brainer with those with eyes to see and ears to ear and souls to be Christ – Bishop Strickland should never have been removed, he should have had Francis invite him to Rome or gone out himself to Tyler to this ‘lost shepherd’ and left the 99, like Rupnik,…even now he should synodally welcome back and listen to him, as he did those papally removed, or those who should have been removed but had their removal reversed. If you keep the infinitely far worse, you have to keep the impoverished not but a little ‘bad’.
If you invite in to privately meet you decades long abortionists and their diabolical global proponents, removed prelates you re-instated, et al, you synodally invite in and converse privately with Bishop Strickland, Cardinal Zen (meeting elsewhere in a non-private affair does not count), Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Muller and those priests who were working with him in the Congregation/Dicastery…you know you ‘get the smell of these little ones of the Lord’, ‘you accompany them with mercy’, ‘you welcome them, include them, not exclude’ and hold your nostrils and unceremoniously mistreat and abuse Christ in them and they in Christ….
hmm….
I recently heard these words at Mass and, personally, I found them terrifying. I wonder how a bishop would hear them:
And now, O priests, this commandment is for you:
If you do not listen,
if you do not lay it to heart,
to give glory to my name, says the LORD of hosts,
I will send a curse upon you
and of your blessing I will make a curse.
You have turned aside from the way,
and have caused many to falter by your instruction;
you have made void the covenant. . .
says the LORD of hosts.
I, therefore, have made you contemptible
and base before all the people,
since you do not keep my ways,
but show partiality in your decisions.
Have we not all the one Father?
Has not the one God created us?
Why then do we break faith with one another,
violating the covenant of our fathers?
Yikes! But if you want to make a new church, fine. But go build your own buildings. You don’t get to keep the ones built by Catholics for Catholics. If you don’t want to be a Catholic in the way those people envisioned, fine, go advertise yours as “the Holy ‘Catholic’ Church without Christ,” where no one is raised from the dead, and no one died for your sins because there is no sin. (Kudos to the prophetic Flannery O’Connor). But don’t live by attaching yourself to a living thing and sucking the life out of it. That’s not progressive, it’s parasitic. And kind of disgusting.
…this author I believe is perspicacious
Dr. Chapp, how long do you think it will take before this pope (or perhaps a successor of the same mindset) decides he’s had enough of the slings and arrows from pesky and influential laymen like you, and retaliates by excommunicating or interdicting you (probably along with others), revoking your mandatum docere and/or directing this and other publications to cease and desist running your articles lest they lose the right to use the term “Catholic” in their name? Do you think your status as layman will protect you indefinitely, in this face of this kind of arbitrary, incontinent use of authority to punish criticism? Can you imagine, then, people saying of you, “well, Chapp may have been right about a lot of things, but he did make many egregious mistakes, like calling Francis a ‘lousy pope’ and a ‘dangerous pope.’ I mean, really–that was going way too far–using that kind of inflammatory, condemnatory language. What else was the pope to do? Tolerate that kind of garbage from a Catholic subject to his direction? Chapp should have known better, especially after the Strickland removal. He should have moderated his language, and not criticized Francis so often.” How would you then respond to that?
Dr. Chapp,
In your effort to be balanced about Pope Francis and Bishop Strickland, you have cast the Bishop into a negative light but have only hinted about the Bishop’s failures without further clarification.
I watched the video when he quoted his friend saying that Pope Francis was a usurper of St. Peter’s chair. His reading of this quote did not seem imprudent to me. He was just emphasizing the state our Church is in today with people having such strong feelings about the Pope. The Bishop never indicated that he was in agreement with this view. There were other parts of the friend’s letter that called him to action, unlike other bishops who are silent on attacks of our Catholic doctrine by their fellow bishops. Perhaps we are living at a time when “The Prophecy of Akita—that bishops would be against bishops—-“is being fulfilled.
In regard to your opinion that Pope Francis has not yet crossed the red line of teaching heresy, it appears that both Cardinal Mueller and Bishop Schneider have different opinions.
And I was of your opinion until recently when Pope Francis has given his permission to bless same-sex marriages.
Thank you and God bless!
My feelings regarding your despicable statements about Bishop Strickland I will not write as he always told those who followed him and have deep respect for him and his courage to treat those we disagree with, with respect and love. Something I am really struggling to, in light of the fact that you publish this as he was just unfairly terminated.
“My feelings regarding your despicable statements about Bishop Strickland I will not write …”
I think you just did.
“On the one hand (for reasons outlined below), I have never been a supporter or admirer of Bishop Strickland.”
Respectfully, Dr. Chapp, you seem to have forgotten to cite the reasons why you’ve never been a supporter of Bp. Strickland, assuming, that is, that you support the Church. In him, the vast majority of actual Roman Catholics see a genuine shepherd’s heart for protecting the faithful against the massively cynical, treacherous machinations of Jorge Bergoglio. Is Bp. Strickland lacking, in your view, because he has dared to do what virtually none of his effeminate (and faithless?) brothers in the episcopate have done, thereby disrupting their world, and potentially that of lay professional Catholics such as yourself as well? …and sorry, but even to countenance the prospect of the firing being for administrative and non-punitive reasons positively reeks of disingenuousness; you know better sir, as surely as your readers do. Perhaps you’d feel better if you would just come clean about your misgivings concerning the good Bishop. On the upside, your suggestion that Francis is “partly to blame” is “partly” correct; that much I’ll grant!
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.
By denying Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, And The Teaching Of The Magisterium, Jorge Bergoglio was a heretic before he was invalidly elected to the Papacy. See Catholic Canon 750 and 751.
With no reason given for removing Bishop Strickland as Bishop, the only possible reason would be that Bishop Strickland, who affirms Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, And Magisterial Teaching, The Deposit Of Faith that Christ Has Entrusted To His, One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, cannot possibly follow a man who could not possibly be a successor of Peter because to do so would be to abandon Christ.
The Vatican tends to be rather tight lipped in matters of clerical discipline. I would not expect to read a long, detailed explanation of why the Bishop was removed. Was this action unjust? Perhaps. But, I remember being told by Conservative Catholics that “the Church is not a democracy.”
William, let me ask you. What does the Church not being a democracy have to do with the dismissal of a bishop who is defending Catholic teachings?
Committed Catholics recoil at what’s going on in this Dark Vatican.
Heterodox prelates like Cupich, McElroy, Hollerich, Martin and company — men who promote sin by disputing Church teachings on marriage and sexuality — are promoted and brought into Bergoglio’s inner circle.
While those who dare to criticize the Bergoglian messes are either overlooked or shown the door.
Democracy is most decidedly *not* the issue here.
Catholicism is.
To say that Bishop Strickland “has erred GREATLY in MANY ways” really seems to be overstating the matter quite considerably, even if Catholics may disagree as to what tone a bishop should most prudently take in doing his duty to uphold the deposit of faith in the midst of the unprecedented crisis of Pope Francis. I am more curious about how the author understands Bishop Strickland’s “brand of traditionalism,” which the author says he himself rejects (and does not even want to be in any way associated with). Bishop Strickland strikes me as a good man who is trying to figure things out, which certainly puts him outside the current mainstream of thinking in the hierarchy, but it seems a bit clumsy to call him a “traditionalist.” Bishop Strickland certainly took a more hardline position on vaccines than most bishops, but that is hardly a marker of “traditionalism.” Many non-trad pro-lifers took the same view as the bishop; and, for that matter, not all traditionalists took such a restrictive view (the pastoral guidance provided by the SSPX and even sedevacantist groups was less restrictive than the opinion of Bishop Strickland, for example). Bishop Strickland has never, as far as I know, expressed even a reservation about Vatican II. Bishop Strickland has founded an organization called the “Knights of St. John Paul II,” which is not really something one would expect from a traditionalist (most traditionalists are very grateful for the clarity of John Paul II’s moral teachings, especially compared to the confusion and possible material heresies of Francis’ teaching, but they remain very critical of JP2’s ecumenism and Church governance and most trads are at least “inopportunists” with respect to his canonization). Access to the traditional Latin Mass and sacraments was never extremely generous in Tyler, and it was only two years ago that Bishop Strickland himself said the old Mass for the first time. It may be, especially now with more time for prayer and study, that Bishop Strickland will move further along the trajectory towards what is normally recognized as “traditionalism” (I personally hope so), but as used in the article the label is not an extremely helpful one. I appreciate Dr. Chapp’s work (even though I think the attempt to “split the blame” between Strickland and Francis is mostly unfounded), but I would be interested to know exactly in what ways he thinks Bishop Strickland is a “traditionalist,” and apparently something of a rad one at that.
Yeah, I would definitely have put him in the conservative camp, rather than the traditionalist one.
He seems to have refused to implement TC, at least for the most part. Not only are there several diocesan parishes offering the TLM, the Cathedral does so as well. I wouldn’t say this makes him a traditionalist, but merely a less rigid bishop than the Pope.
The only other unusual thing I have heard about Strickland’s administration is that, according to Dr. Janet Smith, who has done some work in the subject, Strickland is the only bishop who began his bishopric by looking into the files on past accusations of sexual abuse and other sexual immorality, and started a quiet reckoning among his priests. If I remember right, she said he removed those that were sufficiently bad, and told all his priests that they could come to him to ask for help if they were having problems with that, and he would help them. Those whom he knew had problems who did not come to him, he dealt with in other ways.
That sort of thing is certainly not progressive, and it would have a tendency to make certain priests quite irritated with him. Not to mention some other bishops who should have done the same thing. Besides which, if you’re trying to reinvent the wheel on how to do such things after a century of bishops sweeping it under the rug, you can expect to make some mistakes and cause some damage along the way. “Doesn’t play well with others.” always begs some questions about what the game is.
Larry Chap your article just “keeps on giving”. So many comments about inconclusive things. It’s hard to keep up especially after reading through the winding notes you provided this time. Take for example, Thunderjerky: the Germans would never “attack the Pope” because they have accepted terms that suit them. In effect then they are casting forth unstated limitations on parrhesia and making a mess (possibly?).
Does that mean your article came up trumps you think?
The Germans are at zero risk of becoming gattopardo and they have leverage in tipping others off the edge into gattopardo-land. You got off easy this time.
It is interesting that in this article the writer focuses on Pope Francis and Bishop Strickland but does not mention what happened in St. Louis Missouri under than Archbishop Raymond Burke. Pope Benedict chooses to remove him from St. Louis by moving him to a small community in Malta. I look at these two and their traditionalist movement in direct violation of Vatican II and as such should have been removed from leadership within the Church. This incident may be a big thing in the United States but when one gives this a good look and remembering that the U.S. makes up only 6% of the world Catholics this doesn’t make even a hill of beans to the rest of the Catholic world. I would have to agree with John Allen and call this “Catholic Contempt.”
Yet, financially, Catholics in the USA bankroll the Vatican. Besides, when you’re counting Catholics, it is more accurate to count only those who faithfully worship God as we are called to do which means attending Sunday Mass EVERY week.
Dear Denis Watson,
Pope Benedict also named Raymond Burke A CARDINAL, which doesn’t really seem to support the theory of marginalizing him. After his appointment to a post in Rome and his nomination to the Sacred College, he has a much more global influence than ever he did has Archbishop of St Louis. Could you please give some specifics about what Cardinal Burke and Bishop Strickland have done that is “in direct violation of Vatican II”? Ironically, I could tell you plenty of things that Pope Francis has done in “direct violation of Vatican II.”
I don’t understand this level of criticism of Bishop Strickland in these two CWR articles. Strickland is trying, or he tried, to keep the Catholic boat afloat. He loves Jesus, and he opposes postmodernism in the church. He is not perfect. We wish he would avoid X. But Larry Chapp puts him in one of his “camps” to be avoided. Why can’t there be some love and acceptance from CWR of one who is battling at the front lines?
From the perspective of my mid 70s age, I read down through all the comments and replies, navigating as if to be in a rapid fire old fashion pin ball machine. I just returned from a meeting of Kapaun’s men this morning.
In that meeting we briefly discussed Bishop Strickland’s removal in the absence of full transparency and truth. Then it was mentioned about Cardinal O’Malley to his installation homily when installed as Bishop of Boston. He said, paraphrasing, when you see the poor, the down and out, the despondent, the sick, the dying, if you do not see Jesus Christ in each and every one of them, then you not fulfilling the mission of the Catholic Church. My focus has been on that. Communion to the homebound, teaching the faith, youth mentoring, foster parenting, adoption, counseling and consoling. Jesus I trust in You.
Let’s not lose focus on what He asks of each one of us. Those who I minister to, must not be lost in the flurries of untransparent controversies.
Your column is the most balanced and penetrating I have read on this matter. I now have a more complete understanding. Thank you.