Friday, November 17, 2023


 Father Raymond de Souza hits the ball out of the park with this fair and balanced commentary on the sad, sad, saga of the X bishop:

What’s Next for Bishop Strickland?

COMMENTARY: This sad tale of the Texas bishop is one of partisanship threatening communion, social-media extremism and new rules for the removal of bishops.


ByzRus said...

Tough situation when you don't like your boss and can't apply for jobs with other companies.

Not every boss is going to work out as hoped. The shock and awe regarding a bishops removal for competence, or the basic ability to get along with his staff, is quite common in private industry. People regularly don't live up to expectations despite vetting and even the best of intentions. Many leaders and managers have absolutely no business being in the positions they occupy.

I find the social media vocation, evidently exercised here and by others like Fr. Z, to be perplexing. I spend little time on his page as I mostly don't view supporting his e-career to be my responsibility via participation, or monetary contributions.

I wish the bishop well. Perhaps he feels that he contributed by calling attention to a situation with which he doesn't agree. At the same time, perhaps he should have taken a different tact just bidding his time quietly while caring for his flock. I have found in life that mostly with time, patience and diplomacy, a toxic management situation will usually self-correct with me still being there long after they are relieved.

Mark Thomas said...

In regard to certain responses to Pope Francis' removal (as the Ordinary) of Bishop Strickland from the Diocese of Tyler:

The hateful, irrational, disturbing, unhinged responses from traditionalists/right-wingers have demonstrated that horrific problems exist within that wing of the Church — at least as that wing is represented via blogs/twitter (X).

One leading on-line traditionalist/right-winger after another, including commenters to their blogs/twitter pages, had entered immediately into hateful, rush-to-judgement mode against His Holiness, Pope Francis.

Said folks, have, time and again from 2013 A.D. to date, refused in rational, charitable fashion to have made their concerns known to Pope Francis.

If anything , the vicious responses in question have served only to make things difficult for those who identify as "traditional Catholics," but do not share radtrad hatred for, as well as opposition to, Pope Francis.

How on earth could the following sick, hateful, anti-Catholic responses in regard to Bishop Strickland's removal advance in positive fashion the TLM Movement:

-- Rorate Caeli: "It’s impossible to know when Francis will die...But we are happy to announce we already know his cause of death: choking on his own bile."

-- Michael Matt (The Remnant): "This is total war. Francis is a clear and present danger not only to Catholics the world over but also to the whole world itself. It appears now that he is actively trying to bury fidelity to the Church of Jesus Christ. If this is so, let him be anathema."

Also, what on earth did Bishop Strickland hope to have gained via his disturbing declarations in regard to Pope Francis?

Anyway, the bottom line is that Cardinal DiNardo's has assured us that "The Prelates conducted an exhaustive inquiry into all aspects of the governance and leadership of the Diocese of Tyler by its Ordinary, Bishop Joseph Strickland."

"As a result of the Visitation, the recommendation was made to the Holy Father that the continuation in office of Bishop Strickland was not feasible. After months of careful consideration by the Dicastery for Bishops and the Holy Father, the decision was reached that the resignation of Bishop Strickland should be requested."

I continue to pray for Bishop Strickland, as well as for my brothers and sisters in the Faith who belong to the Diocese of Tyler.


Mark Thomas

TJM said...

The leftwing supports abortion on demand, gay marriage and the genital mutilation of children. Good company you’ re in, Mark Thomas!

Mark Thomas said...

Fake news reports have claimed that Cardinal Pierre, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, declared to Bishop Strickland that the "Deposit of Faith" does not exist.

Example: LifeSiteNews:

November 13, 2023 A.D.

-- Terry Barber reveals US nuncio Cardinal Pierre told Bishop Strickland ‘there is no deposit of faith’

(LifeSiteNews) — Terry Barber of Virgin Most Powerful Radio revealed on Sunday that Pope Francis’ apostolic nuncio to the United States, Cardinal Christophe Pierre, told Bishop Joseph Strickland three years ago that “there is no deposit of faith.”

Barber, who regularly speaks with the faithful and recently deposed prelate of Tyler, Texas, on his radio program The Bishop Strickland Hour, said that according to Bishop Strickland, Pierre made the “shocking” claim at a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“Bishop Strickland communicated to me that … Pierre confronted [him] and said, ‘Look, the Holy Father is watching you. You need to stop talking about the deposit of faith. There is no deposit of faith.’”


Bishop Strickland last night acknowledged to Raymond Arroyo that Cardinal Pierre did not say that the Deposit of Faith does not exist.

Nevertheless, Terry Barber had claimed: “Bishop Strickland communicated to me that … Pierre...said, ‘You need to stop talking about the deposit of faith. There is no deposit of faith.’”


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

I thought that Bishop Strickland was uninformed as to why he had been removed as Ordinary of the Diocese of Tyler?

Last night on World Over:

Raymond Arroyo: "Did Cardinal Pierre offer any reason for the request for you to retire, or resign from your office, rather?"

Bishop Strickland: "Yes. He read several pages of issues of concerns."


The narrative in question advanced during the past few days by Bishop Strickland, as well as his supporters, has unraveled.

Pope Francis' vicious critics, via their off-the-rails, rush to judgement, hateful attacks against His Holiness, thought that they had nailed our Holy Father. But has been the case time and again since 2013 A.D., Pope Francis' vicious critics have made themselves look ridiculous.

Said folks delight in opposing Pope Francis. We can always count upon the anti-Pope Francis contingent to rush-to-judgement against His Holiness. Said folks can be counted upon to throw in with anybody they view as Pope Francis' enemy/opponent.

From Archbishop Viganò on down the line, said folks have, time and again, thrown in with the wrong person. Said folks are always willing to believe the worst in regard to the Vicar of Christ.


Mark Thomas

Unknown said...

Should the Vicar of Christ go to bat for unrepentant sexual abusers among the clergy, I would have a lot of patience for people who throw in with his opponents.


Православный физик said...

These days I don't find myself caring much about the shenanigans going on in Roman Circles, but, I have come to say I don't think it's a good precedent.

Unless there's a canonical crime that Bp Strickland has committed, been convicted of, and had a chance to appeal, I don't think he should have been removed as Bishop. Since when does disagreeing with the priests in ones diocese constitute a removable offence? (I suppose it wouldn't help matters, but there's no requirement to get along with everyone in a diocese). Since when does disagreeing with the Pope constitute removal? (If that's the case, there's a ton of bishops that should have been sacked when they refused to implement Summorum Pontificum).

I certainly don't think he (Bp. Strickland) helped himself in his approach, it would have perhaps been wise to watch what one is saying. It's certainly interesting that many seem to character attack him rather than look at the substance of what he says. It's an abuse of authority, but as we know, absolute power, corrupts absolutely.

Something to perhaps think about are the consequences of universal jurisdiction, one of the major critiques is that it effectively allows the Pope to micromanage a diocese. I would make the argument with TC and the instruction that went along with it, that he's doing exactly that. Do the Bishops get their authority from the Pope or from Christ? If it's the former, one might make the argument that the pope is well within his rights to do what he's presently doing.

The servant is not greater than the Master....and it's something that perhaps needs to be prayed upon more. It makes a horrible example of leadership, if the leadership constantly exempts itself from what it expects everyone else to do.

TJM said...


Notice how MT ignores the intrinsic evils of the Left? Deflection much?

Jerome Merwick said...


You fell for it again. Of course his remarks are idiocy. Stop feeding his need for attention. After your little slip up, you can see the little troll dialoging with himself. Let's keep it that way.

Mark Thomas said...

Wow! Father Raymond J. de Souza did not hold back in regard to his bleak assessment of Bishop Strickland.

Father de Souza said:

-- "The removal of a bishop from his diocese is a sad outcome, even if thought best for the common good of the local Church. In this case, the one person who may not be sad is Bishop Strickland himself. He seemed to desire precisely this outcome."

-- "In recent months, Bishop Strickland became increasingly extreme in his attacks on the Holy Father...A bishop who does not waiting to be shown the door, but opening it himself, asking for it to be slammed upon him."

-- "Bishop Strickland became increasingly shrill, no longer promoting communion rooted in the truths of the Catholic faith..."

-- "The bishop of Tyler would not judge it helpful to the holiness of his people to disparage the Holy Father and tear away at the bonds of communion with him. The bishop of Twitter finds it his preferred style of preaching."

-- "While it was Bishop Strickland’s reckless social-media activity that attracted the attention of Rome, it may well be that it is maladministration of the diocese that led to his removal."

-- "At least one priest in Tyler, Father Tim Kelly, wrote of Bishop Strickland’s removal that “many decent good people have been hurt under his administration” when “something dark descended upon the Diocese of Tyler."

Bishop Strickland is in need of our prayers.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

The following are powerful remarks from Father de Souza that should inspire the "S is for Strickland" folks to renounce their unfortunate support for Bishop Strickland. Said folks have enabled Bishop Strickland's extremism.

From Father de Souza:

-- "Bishop Strickland became increasingly shrill, no longer promoting communion rooted in the truths of the Catholic faith..."

-- "The bishop of Tyler would not judge it helpful to the holiness of his people to disparage the Holy Father and tear away at the bonds of communion with him. The bishop of Twitter finds it his preferred style of preaching."


Mark Thomas

Jerome Merwick said...

Y'know the more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that we are indeed making WAY too much fuss about the synod and the massacre of Bishop Strickland.

After all our current nuncio, Cardinal Pierre, has now let us off the hook, by insisting that there is no deposit of the faith.

Anything goes! I'm off to pursue the gospel of hedonism!

Thank you Holy Francis, for giving us such a holy, holy nuncio to enlighten us with your most holy ideas!

Mark Thomas said...

Father Raymond de Souza declared:

"In recent months, Bishop Strickland became increasingly extreme in his attacks on the Holy Father...Bishop Strickland became increasingly shrill, no longer promoting communion rooted in the truths of the Catholic faith..."

It is appalling that more than a few traditionalists/right-wingers enabled/supported the horrific behavior that Father de Souza noted. Said folks hoped that Bishop Strickland would continue, if not increase, his vicious attacks against the Vicar of Christ.

It is appalling, but not surprising, that more than a few traditionalists had thrown in with a bishop who was "no longer promoting communion rooted in the truths of the Catholic faith..."

It is undeniable that as long as hatred is hurled at Pope Francis, "S is for Strickland" folks are fine with the rejection of "communion rooted in the truths of the Catholic faith..."

Father Raymond is to be applauded for having told the truth in regard to Bishop Strickland's destructive extremism. In turn, Bishop Strickland's supporters, have made themselves look ridiculous. But that has always been the case in regard to those who have thrown in with Satan.
As Cardinal Sarah has assured us, attacks against Pope Francis are the work of the Devil.

In turn, it is a given that Satan will embarrass anybody who would throw in with him.


Mark Thomas

TJM said...

Jerome Merwick,

Mea culpa. You are right!