The Most Insane Reaction to Strickland’s Ousting

[Michie]

Enemies of Bishop Strickland came out in force in the last week, trying to one-up each other in their ludicrous accusations against the good bishop.

Since Bishop Strickland was unceremoniously removed from his post in Tyler, Texas, there have been some reactions that have been a bit nutty. Those who are aptly called “popesplainers”—someone who “splains” or explains for the pope, no matter what he does—have been having a victory parade online. Cries of “far-right extremist” and “extremist election denier” have made the rounds. These men are having a field day with a lot of “splaining to do,” and it is nauseating to witness.

One popesplainer named Rich Raho, who calls himself a Catholic theologian, cited the pendragon of sanity and virtue Rachel Maddow and tweeted that Bishop Strickland called for an “overthrow of the [2020 presidential] election.” You might be thinking to yourself, “Does this mean that this man is publicly accusing the good bishop of calling for an act of civil usurpation and an overthrow of the governmental system of the United States?” Well, it seems that he is at least implying it.

Amazing. Not only is Bishop Strickland a big old meanie who likes the Latin Mass and has the clarity of mind to call a spade a spade when it comes to Pope Francis, but he is also, apparently, a leader in an insurrectionist movement hell-bent on a revolution that would shake the United States to the core!

Continued below.

The Most Insane Reaction to Strickland’s Ousting

Enemies of Bishop Strickland came out in force in the last week, trying to one-up each other in their ludicrous accusations against the good bishop.

crisismagazine.com

 

[fide]

I couldn't make it through this article. Crisis magazine surprised me publishing it. I wonder, also, if the self-identified theologian referred to the papal election, not that secular "[2020 presidential]" one.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I couldn't make it through this article. Crisis magazine surprised me publishing it. I wonder, also, if the self-identified theologian referred to the papal election, not that secular "[2020 presidential]" one.

They, the usual suspects, are sure having a 'spittle flecked nutty' over the ouster of bishop Strickland. And if facts haven't yet been revealed as to why good pope Francis had to act to protect the diocese of Tyler and us all from this awful bishop, those can be made up as needed.

 

[Michie]

Interesting read here:

Does Pope Francis Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt?

By Eric Sammons - Many Catholics argue that we must always give the pope the “benefit of the doubt.” But is this true? Do we always have to assume the best of intentions in the pope’s words and actions?

crisismagazine.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

Interesting read here:

Does Pope Francis Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt?

By Eric Sammons - Many Catholics argue that we must always give the pope the “benefit of the doubt.” But is this true? Do we always have to assume the best of intentions in the pope’s words and actions?

crisismagazine.com

I gave him the benefit of the doubt for years. Now I observe that sometimes he is right but I have used up all of my benefit of the doubt.

 

[Michie]

This pretty much sums up my feelings here:

All this doesn’t mean we must give the worst interpretations to the pope’s actions. I’ve seen that happen as well, where fed-up Catholics assume that Francis is intent on destroying the Church—that he’s actively working for its downfall in every action he takes. I think that’s unfair, as a more reasonable interpretation is simply that his view of Catholicism is at odds with what the Church has traditionally taught and practiced. To give the worst interpretation of every action and statement of the pope is just as bad as a blanket benefit of the doubt, as both deny reality.

Catholicism does not require that we check our reason at the door. We don’t have to pretend that an action or statement means something it clearly doesn’t mean. If Pope Francis does something egregious—and the sacking of Bishop Strickland is a perfect example of such an action—we don’t have to assume the best intentions on the part of a pope who has continually fallen short of earning our trust.

I have issues with those that seems to think we must check our brains at the door. The second article is charitable enough in its view without requiring us to be lemmings.

 

[mourningdove~]

It is my observation in life that there ARE those persons who will 'take advantage' of kind persons ... like true Christians, who they know will be inclined to give them 'the benefit of the doubt' .. and use the Christian's understanding and charitableness against them.

 

[Michie]

Strickland’s removal was against canon law

The removal of Msgr. Strickland from the leadership of the diocese by Pope Francis, took place without a trial, in violation of canonical norms. Msgr. Torres received the same treatment in 2022. As Saint John Paul II explained, this is contrary to charity and natural justice.

newdailycompass.com

 

[Michie]

Searching for Answers: Why Was Bishop Joseph Strickland Removed?

The Vatican focused on Twitter and Tyler.

www.ncregister.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

Strickland’s removal was against canon law

The removal of Msgr. Strickland from the leadership of the diocese by Pope Francis, took place without a trial, in violation of canonical norms. Msgr. Torres received the same treatment in 2022. As Saint John Paul II explained, this is contrary to charity and natural justice.

newdailycompass.com

Despite what canon 416 says, the pope is not bound by that canon. He can do an end run around it if he pleases, when he pleases, for whatever reason or non-reason he pleases. It is a violation of common decency and good order to do that end run but he is not compelled to even follow his own laws to n the removal of a bishop.

He should have. Not doing so is clearly doing damage. I think we will all regret that he did what he did.

One of the most significant effects will probably be harm done to ecumenical relations with the Orthodox. We wanted them to know that we didn’t do things in arbitrary ways and to know that the pope wasn’t going to roll over them like some kind of dictator. It’s going to be uphill to convince them of that when the pope acts arbitrarily and like a dictator.

Whoops. We’re setting relations back a long way. In addition to getting rid of a good bishop. Go figure.

 

[IcyChain]

I gave him the benefit of the doubt for years. Now I observe that sometimes he is right but I have used up all of my benefit of the doubt.

How do you reconcile that with Canon 752 concerning the religious submission of the intellect and will?

 

[IcyChain]

This pretty much sums up my feelings here:

All this doesn’t mean we must give the worst interpretations to the pope’s actions. I’ve seen that happen as well, where fed-up Catholics assume that Francis is intent on destroying the Church—that he’s actively working for its downfall in every action he takes. I think that’s unfair, as a more reasonable interpretation is simply that his view of Catholicism is at odds with what the Church has traditionally taught and practiced. To give the worst interpretation of every action and statement of the pope is just as bad as a blanket benefit of the doubt, as both deny reality.

Catholicism does not require that we check our reason at the door. We don’t have to pretend that an action or statement means something it clearly doesn’t mean. If Pope Francis does something egregious—and the sacking of Bishop Strickland is a perfect example of such an action—we don’t have to assume the best intentions on the part of a pope who has continually fallen short of earning our trust.

I have issues with those that seems to think we must check our brains at the door. The second article is charitable enough in its view without requiring us to be lemmings.

Well the issue here is that the living Magisterium (the pope and the bishops in communion with him) is the authentic interpreter of tradition and scripture. Obviously Pope Francis does not conclude that his interpretation is at odds with what the Church has traditionally taught. So what we have is Catholics reading the fathers, prior encyclicals, acts of the councils, etc., deciding for themselves that the tradition is XYZ, and then judging that the pope is in contradiction to their private interpretation of tradition. It is essentially the same thing that Protestants do with the Bible. To the extent that the pastor agrees with their private interpretation of the Bible, they follow the pastor. If the pastor disagrees with their private interpretation of the Bible, they find a new pastor who agrees with their interpretation. This general idea of individual Catholic layperson interpreting the deposit of faith for himself and then judging the pope's adherence to their own interpretation is essentially a Protestant approach to ecclesiology, so it seems to me.

 

[chevyontheriver]

How do you reconcile that with Canon 752 concerning the religious submission of the intellect and will?


If pope Francis gives me an order I will comply. If it is a lawful order. If pope Francis tells me to believe something I will believe it. If it accords with the deposit of faith. I cannot any longer just presume with pope Francis as I could have with all the other popes in my living memory. How about you? Are things that were sins now OK because the pope says? Or do you at least pause a tiny moment first?

 

[IcyChain]

How do you reconcile that with Canon 752 concerning the religious submission of the intellect and will?


If pope Francis gives me an order I will comply. If it is a lawful order. If pope Francis tells me to believe something I will believe it. If it accords with the deposit of faith. I cannot any longer just presume with pope Francis as I could have with all the other popes in my living memory. How about you? Are things that were sins now OK because the pope says? Or do you at least pause a tiny moment first?

Well, as I wrote above, I'm not sure how this is different than the Protestants really. How is it different than the Protestant who says "I will follow what my pastor teaches as long as it accords with the Bible"? It kind of seems to me that you have made yourself the ultimate interpreter and authority over the deposit of faith, in the same way that each Protestant ultimately makes himself the ultimate interpreter and authority over Scripture.

I would say the fundamental disposition that the Catholic should have is one of acceptance. If we are taught something that does not accord with our own understanding of tradition, then we should try to reconcile our position to that of the Magisterium. Our basic disposition in the case of conflict should be that our understanding is flawed and that the Magisterium is correct, unless in conscience we absolutely cannot do otherwise.

As for conscience, if the pope said to me "IcyChain go murder a baby" my response would be the same as yours. I could not bring my conscience to accept that and would have to reject that. But I think many Catholics take this way too far, such that the basic disposition of acceptance becomes a basic disposition of suspicion and making oneself the ultimate judge of everything, without an earnest attempt to reconcile one's position to that of what is being taught. There is a big difference between grave moral wrongs like killing a child and a footnote in Amoris.

To answer your question, there are various things that do not make complete sense to me from this Magisterium when I apply my own logic and reason and that give me pause (the purported change in the view concerning the death penalty comes immediately to mind) but I can bring myself to accept the current teaching and hope to better my understanding of it. I am open to the idea that my understanding of the issue may be incorrect and defer to the judgment of those with God-given authority to teach.

I think that as Catholics we believe that the Holy Spirit acts uniquely to guide our Magisterium into teaching the truth. If it were the case that the pope could habitually teach error, I do not see any reason for having a pope. Do you? We may as well rid ourselves of the pope and be Eastern Orthodox since they have a valid Mass, it seems to me.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well, as I wrote above, I'm not sure how this is different than the Protestants really. How is it different than the Protestant who says "I will follow what my pastor teaches as long as it accords with the Bible"? It kind of seems to me that you have made yourself the ultimate interpreter and authority over the deposit of faith, in the same way that each Protestant ultimately makes himself the ultimate interpreter and authority over Scripture.

OK. Catholics gotta dump their brain to follow whatever the pope wants. And so I'm a Protestant because I have made myself my own pope.

I would say the fundamental disposition that the Catholic should have is one of acceptance. If we are taught something that does not accord with our own understanding of tradition, then we should try to reconcile our position to that of the Magisterium. Our basic disposition in the case of conflict should be that our understanding is flawed and that the Magisterium is correct, unless in conscience we absolutely cannot do otherwise.

I was a 'popesplainer' for several years following 2013. I worked hard to explain to others how crazy things said by this pope should be interpreted in the best possible light. I accepted that pope Francis was right but just misunderstood. And I did try very hard to reconcile my backwardist thinking to the new things the pope was teaching. Been there. Done that.

As for conscience, if the pope said to me "IcyChain go murder a baby" my response would be the same as yours. I could not bring my conscience to accept that and would have to reject that.

Aha! You have made yourself your own pope too. OR maybe a moment to consider things isn't all that bad before getting on board with every new thing.

But I think many Catholics take this way too far, such that the basic disposition of acceptance becomes a basic disposition of suspicion and making oneself the ultimate judge of everything, without an earnest attempt to reconcile one's position to that of what is being taught. There is a big difference between grave moral wrongs like killing a child and a footnote in Amoris.

It was a process for me. As I described before, I was a popesplainer. I tried really hard, but it was just too much. And now my first thought on hearing that the pope has made some new statement is kind of a dread. OK. I admit that some things he says are actually good. And I don't think he has tried an infallible error yet, or at least not succeeded at it.

To answer your question, there are various things that do not make complete sense to me from this Magisterium when I apply my own logic and reason and that give me pause (the purported change in the view concerning the death penalty comes immediately to mind) but I can bring myself to accept the current teaching and hope to better my understanding of it. I am open to the idea that my understanding of the issue may be incorrect and defer to the judgment of those with God-given authority to teach.

I'm against the death penalty generally but there are rare times that I see it as needed to protect society. Exceptionally rare circumstances that likely never occur in this country would be my only difference with this new teaching. I just wonder how the morality changes. I don't get that. JPII's position I could see. This I can't yet. It seems morality changes now.

I think that as Catholics we believe that the Holy Spirit acts uniquely to guide our Magisterium into teaching the truth. If it were the case that the pope could habitually teach error, I do not see any reason for having a pope. Do you? We may as well rid ourselves of the pope and be Eastern Orthodox since they have a valid Mass, it seems to me.

My understanding is that the magisterium isn't to invent new teaching but for the most part to preserve teaching. Or prevent doctrinal development from taking a left turn. It's highly conservative. The Holy Spirit guarantees the process. Normally that means the pope is on board.

Pope Francis shoots from the hip way too much. Which is fine if it's his personal opinion that I am not obliged to consider Gospel Truth. Where it gets interesting is that footnotes to Amoris have cardinals wondering and when the cardinals ask about that they get stonewalled. Eh, then there is the matter of personnel the pope has appointed, ones that do think Catholic morality is wrong and needs to be updated. Personnel IS policy and the personnel this pope picks just scare me.

Just yesterday I had a get together with some friends. One of them asked, with zero prompting from me, what was up with pope Francis. And it turns out they have all been wondering. There is enough going on that everybody seems to wonder now. So I spent much of that conversation encouraging NOT becoming sedevacantists.

 

[IcyChain]

OK. Catholics gotta dump their brain to follow whatever the pope wants. And so I'm a Protestant because I have made myself my own pope.

Well, I would say that your ecclesiology is Protestant because your approach to authority is essentially the same as Protestants. If you can explain how it differs from that of the Protestants, I am all ears. I could be wrong.

I was a 'popesplainer' for several years following 2013. I worked hard to explain to others how crazy things said by this pope should be interpreted in the best possible light. I accepted that pope Francis was right but just misunderstood. And I did try very hard to reconcile my backwardist thinking to the new things the pope was teaching. Been there. Done that.

Well, perhaps you did not work hard enough. That is also a possibility. I and many other Cathlolics have sat through his entire pontificate, and have not yet had your sense of general dread or burnout from "Popesplaining", so I know that it is possible.

Aha! You have made yourself your own pope too. OR maybe a moment to consider things isn't all that bad before getting on board with every new thing.

Well actually not, because the pope has not instructed me to kill a baby and I actually follow the pope. But if and when he issues that instruction, feel free to get back to me. The nice thing about my hypothetical, of course, is that both you and I know that will never happen.

It was a process for me. As I described before, I was a popesplainer. I tried really hard, but it was just too much. And now my first thought on hearing that the pope has made some new statement is kind of a dread. OK. I admit that some things he says are actually good. And I don't think he has tried an infallible error yet, or at least not succeeded at it.

I'm against the death penalty generally but there are rare times that I see it as needed to protect society. Exceptionally rare circumstances that likely never occur in this country would be my only difference with this new teaching. I just wonder how the morality changes. I don't get that. JPII's position I could see. This I can't yet. It seems morality changes now.

Popesplaining aside, it is actually is possible that you could be wrong, and that Pope Francis could be right. You yourself not being infallible, of course. I'm not sure why it was just too much for you, to be honest. It's not like you got thrown in jail or had to shed blood was it?

My understanding is that the magisterium isn't to invent new teaching but for the most part to preserve teaching. Or prevent doctrinal development from taking a left turn. It's highly conservative. The Holy Spirit guarantees the process. Normally that means the pope is on board.

Pope Francis shoots from the hip way too much. Which is fine if it's his personal opinion that I am not obliged to consider Gospel Truth. Where it gets interesting is that footnotes to Amoris have cardinals wondering and when the cardinals ask about that they get stonewalled. Eh, then there is the matter of personnel the pope has appointed, ones that do think Catholic morality is wrong and needs to be updated. Personnel IS policy and the personnel this pope picks just scare me.

Just yesterday I had a get together with some friends. One of them asked, with zero prompting from me, what was up with pope Francis. And it turns out they have all been wondering. There is enough going on that everybody seems to wonder now. So I spent much of that conversation encouraging NOT becoming sedevacantists.

Well a fair number of my friends are trads. And if you are entertaining folks who are on the edge of going the sede route that is likely who you are dealing with. I attend a trad parish. One of the few that still has authorization to celebrate the TLM. So I'm very familiar with all of the various grievances and arguments that they have. But I see the situation a different way. I see that Pope Francis is consistently misrepresented, that many trads have a serious misunderstanding of the issues that they profess to be knowledgeable about, that their arguments are easily refuted by a knowledgeable Catholic who is willing to investigate their arguments, and that their views concerning the papacy are anything but "traditional" and clearly out-of-line with the teaching of the Church. I think that many of them are in serious error, and that the Pope is more or less fine.

But I can appreciate that other people see things in a different way and have a different perspective on it. I could certainly be wrong, but so could they.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well a fair number of my friends are trads. And if you are entertaining folks who are on the edge of going the sede route that is likely who you are dealing with. I attend a trad parish. One of the few that still has authorization to celebrate the TLM. So I'm very familiar with all of the various grievances and arguments that they have.

Um, these guys are not Latin mass folks AT ALL, generally not news junkies, are fairly Biblically literate, Catholic in a novus ordo sort of way, people that pray, and they surprised me. I have never spoken a word about my opinions about pope Francis to any of them.

But I see the situation a different way. I see that Pope Francis is consistently misrepresented, that many trads have a serious misunderstanding of the issues that they profess to be knowledgeable about, that their arguments are easily refuted by a knowledgeable Catholic who is willing to investigate their arguments, and that their views concerning the papacy are anything but "traditional" and clearly out-of-line with the teaching of the Church. I think that many of them are in serious error, and that the Pope is more or less fine.

But I can appreciate that other people see things in a different way and have a different perspective on it. I could certainly be wrong, but so could they.

I do have a different perspective than you do. I know how the media can get things wrong. In fact they usually are confused by religion stories. But then for them to even get certain ideas there had to be some substance somewhere. So the media meme is that pope Francis will be approving of the blessing of homosexuals. Whoopie sure thought that was the line. And the pope did not correct her story. Cardinal Hollerich has said that current teaching on the subject of LGBTQ is wrong and needs to be changed. We just finished a synod where changing that teaching was one of the major issues. SO, did the media get it wrong? Or is there something to it all?

I guess you would say there is nothing actually there. I think there is just too much there to say it's nothing. I don't trust pope Francis' cardinals. I have heard and read what they say. And personnel IS policy, way more than just words. It's not me wanting to be my own pope. I don't want the job. I just want a pope again that I can trust. I would love for this pope to be trustworthy, but nope.

 

[Michie]

• Father Marko Rupnik. With the full knowledge and at least tacit approval of Pope Francis, a Slovenian diocese has announced that Rupnik, a former Jesuit, has been accepted and granted faculty as a priest into the diocese of Koper. Since he is a Catholic Priest in good standing with the Holy Father, why not?

• Cardinal Joe Tobin. So, he lived with a male Italian soap opera star. Cardinal Tobin is infamous for his accidental public tweet in which he wished someone “Nighty-Night Baby, I love you.” He has a current job, but since he is in good standing with the Holy Father, maybe he can make some recommendations.

Continued below.

Where does Tyler go from here? - Catholics for Catholics

Among the questions surrounding the termination of Bishop Strickland is what happens to the people of Tyler, Texas, who now lack a shepherd.

cforc.com

 

[IcyChain]

Um, these guys are not Latin mass folks AT ALL, generally not news junkies, are fairly Biblically literate, Catholic in a novus ordo sort of way, people that pray, and they surprised me. I have never spoken a word about my opinions about pope Francis to any of them.

Yeah that comes as a surprise to me too. I have had seen people on the Sede path, and it usually has gone conservative catholic -> trad -> rad trad --> Sede. I've never seen a person go from a conservative catholic straight to sede, but I suppose it is possible.

I do have a different perspective than you do. I know how the media can get things wrong. In fact they usually are confused by religion stories. But then for them to even get certain ideas there had to be some substance somewhere. So the media meme is that pope Francis will be approving of the blessing of homosexuals. Whoopie sure thought that was the line. And the pope did not correct her story. Cardinal Hollerich has said that current teaching on the subject of LGBTQ is wrong and needs to be changed. We just finished a synod where changing that teaching was one of the major issues. SO, did the media get it wrong? Or is there something to it all?

I guess you would say there is nothing actually there. I think there is just too much there to say it's nothing. I don't trust pope Francis' cardinals. I have heard and read what they say. And personnel IS policy, way more than just words. It's not me wanting to be my own pope. I don't want the job. I just want a pope again that I can trust. I would love for this pope to be trustworthy, but nope.

I don't remember all of the details of that, but as soon as I heard the news that Pope Francis approved the blessing of homosexual unions, I thought to myself "Fake news" and so it was. In fact, as soon as I heard the news I thought it was laughable that any Catholic could actually believe that it was true.

Of course, a homosexual person can be blessed. So can a pedophile, a sex-addict, many other people who have a propensity towards sin. What was it all about again, if you don't mind reminding me?

Yeah, I am aware that there is a group of European bishops, mostly in Germany, who seem to be on the verge of breaking away from the faith, but I think the pope will deal with that problem in the way that he sees fit for the overall good of the Church.

Our Lord waited until an appropriate time to deal with Judas, after all. . .

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yeah that comes as a surprise to me too. I have had seen people on the Sede path, and it usually has gone conservative catholic -> trad -> rad trad --> Sede. I've never seen a person go from a conservative catholic straight to sede, but I suppose it is possible.

I think it's a measure of the mess that is now pretty obvious. And looking for ways to make sense of it. And thinking that a real pope just wouldn't do the things pope Francis does. In the end last night we prayed for pope Francis.

I don't remember all of the details of that, but as soon as I heard the news that Pope Francis approved the blessing of homosexual unions, I thought to myself "Fake news" and so it was. In fact, as soon as I heard the news I thought it was laughable that any Catholic could actually believe that it was true.

The problem with it is that it COULD be read one way and COULD be read another. It was clear as mud, and seemed to be intentionally muddy. Which allows people to run with the interpretation that we're doing gay marriages now, but we have to wink and nod while doing so. I expect such marriages to begin popping up in multiple dioceses any time. The Vatican can deny it but their (intentionally) muddy position will be what enabled such things.

Of course, a homosexual person can be blessed. So can a pedophile, a sex-addict, many other people who have a propensity towards sin. What was it all about again, if you don't mind reminding me?

Do we now bless two people who are going to be performing sodomy? What will next year's synod conclude after this year's synod spent so much time and effort on it? How will cardinal Hollerich procede?

Yeah, I am aware that there is a group of European bishops, mostly in Germany, who seem to be on the verge of breaking away from the faith, but I think the pope will deal with that problem in the way that he sees fit for the overall good of the Church.

Perhaps. The Germans are pushing the envelope. They seem to have already gone into practical schism except that pope Francis has yet to say they are in schism. So they're not just yet in schism. Maybe pope Francis stands up to them. He has been sounding like he might be standing up to them in the past few days. Time will tell. He seems to know how to fire bishops. What will he do in Germany?