Pope Francis on Saturday forcibly removed the bishop of Tyler, Texas, a firebrand conservative prelate active on social media who has been a fierce critic of the pontiff and has come to symbolize the polarization within the U.S. Catholic hierarchy.
A one-line statement from the Vatican said Francis had “relieved” Bishop Joseph Strickland of the pastoral governance of Tyler and appointed the bishop of Austin as the temporary administrator.
Strickland, 65, has emerged as a leading critic of Francis, accusing him in a tweet earlier this year of “undermining the deposit of faith.” He has been particularly critical of Francis’ recent meeting on the future of the Catholic Church during which hot-button issues were discussed, including ways to better welcome LGBTQ+ Catholics.
Earlier this year, the Vatican sent in investigators to look into his governance of the diocese, amid reports that priests and laypeople in Tyler had complained and that he was making unorthodox claims.
He’s gonna go start his own church with blackjack and children.
Under
agedrated comment right there!He will 100% use this to start a new church to siphon funds from his snowflake congregation
Wouldn’t doing that literally be considered heresy? That doesn’t really mean much in the modern day I suppose, but if he actually believes all the Catholic stuff (which I imagine he might, to have gotten that high a rank in it in the first place?), then potentially getting excommunicated is probably not something he would want.
I’d be curious if there are actual numbers out there, but a number of ex-Catholics I know have deemed Francis the antipope and have latched onto some random local evangelical church that aligns with their political values. I could definitely see this guy jumping on board with that.
I mean, possibly, but yeah “heresy” isn’t really a big deal in the modern sense. Like, Protestants are heretics. Nobody really cares at this point.
This guy hasn’t been defrocked, just removed from the bishop’s seat. He’s still a priest. If he goes and starts a different (non-Catholic) church, he’d be dismissed, probably excommunicated, but that’s pretty rare I think. And regardless of what he thinks of his boss, his whole life is basically being a Catholic priest. I doubt he’ll leave.
deleted by creator
And by that, he’ll call it his own “Las Nevadas”, but way, way more insidious and manipulative.
Good. More of this. Fuck these conservatives wolves in bishops clothing.
Next let’s expell all the diddlers… you can’t tell me they aren’t still around…
Tin foil hat
I read some Italian news story on how basically all the bishops at the vatican are playing politics and slow rolling any real progress on kicking out the diddlers. Probably trying to save the sanctity of the church, but mostly billions in damages paid out to victims.
I don’t think that’s far fetched at all.
If they did that there would probably be more churches than clergymen left.
(Not that I see a downside, but they probably do)
Wait but wasn’t a dogma that the word of the Pope IS the word of God? So that guy is an heretic and should be burnt at the stake
Only when the pope chooses to speak as god, forget the fancy term.
The Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility means that the pope has the power as head of the Church to declare something an unquestionable part of Church doctrine. This was last used to declare “the Virgin Mary went to heaven” as part of the Catholic doctrine. The “infallible” part of “papal infallibility” means that the pope’s decision on the matter is final and that is the end of the discussion.
Not sure where Catholics got that. The Bible pretty clearly says Mary is burning eternally in hell for having premarital sex with the Holy Spirit.
Was it pre-marital or extra-marital?
Guess it’s both, isn’t it?
Yes. When he’s speaking formally.
When he calls the nurse wiping his decrepit ass “a hot piece of tail”… that’s not formal doctrine. That’s just his mortal opinion. I believe the official term is when he’s speaking “ex cathedral”. There may be times broader than that, that count, but it’s a pretty obvious thing when he is.
Oh man but everyone tells me the Pope is so helpless and can’t stop child sex abuse in his own organisation.
The Vatican is only all-powerful in theory. The internal politics of the Catholic Church unfortunately are still a big consideration. They can only send out so many inquisitors and upend so many clergymen before internal unrest starts spreading. The worst-case scenario for the Vatican is for there to be another schism in the Church.
Many of the Church’s institutions are thousands of years old and the Church is the oldest surviving Western cultural and political institution. It has a lot of baggage. I am not Catholic, but I still respect that Pope Francis has at least acknowledged the Church’s wrongs and is trying to nudge it in the right direction. There is so much inertia that even the Pope can only nudge, not steer. That’s why the doctrine of papal infallibility is only used in the way it is.
I’m super curious how the various governments would handle a schism. If the churches of west america decide to break away, and the churches of the east decide to break away, but neither wants to stick with the other side, and obviously all three parties want to keep the land and buildings and everything else, how would the ownership of the various properties/organizations and all the bank accounts/employer statuses be decided?
Still, you can’t question the authority of the Pope and call yourself a Catholic, it’s impossible for the Catholic Church
Ex cathedra?
That’s it, thank you. It’s…. Been a while.
The thing you put down your penis?
Nobody wants pain when they Ex Cathedra.
Ex cathedra, iirc (or something similar).
Isn’t it when he’s acting as the Holy See, or something like that? I saw a video explaining it a long time ago, but I can’t recall all the details.
Sitting on the Holy Seat, informally. That’s where the word cathedral comes from: the fancy seat for visiting bishops.
deleted by creator
There’s a heresy called sedevacantism that basically believes the last few Popes don’t count because they’ve taken positions that the real Pope would never take.
They don’t do the burning at the stake bit anymore though.
Some people are lucky that today’s popes don’t act like the popes of the olden days.
BTW, which one was the last true Pope in theory eyes? I bet it’s the fascist one
I think most of them think the last real pope was Pius XII, and yeah he was the guy who signed the Reichskonkordat with the Nazis, which required priests in Germany to take an oath of loyalty to the German Reich.
He actually did that as Secretary of State before he became pope, on behalf of the previous pope, so they were both fash.
The reason sedevacantists dislike his successor, John XXIII, is that they are really upset about the Second Vatican Council introducing ideas like “the beneficial nature of diversity” and “concern for secular human values.” That’s the moment when they think the church went off the rails.
a heretic.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/mJUtMEJdvqM?si=V-7DsP_X4T64I-Km
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I don’t get how you can be ‘too progressive’. Surely progress is a good thing, no? If you’re against progress, you’re in favor of things remaining as they are or getting worse. To me, that’s just being a cunt.
I guess what I’m saying is, “Pope removes bishop for being too much of a cunt” would’ve been a good headline also.
Many people worked hard within the current hierarchy or system to attain power. They essentially invested their time, resource or energy for this gain over a lifetime. Progressives want change to the existing power heirarchies and systems. That change nullifies the lifetime investment. That’s why there is such institutional resistance to progressives.
Yeah, but fuck em.
50% joking btw
To me, that’s just being a cunt.
Welcome to religious conservatism.
Progress for one man can be regression for other.
Ah interesting. Sounds smart. Doesn’t fit here though.
Gotta ask… Specifically regarding the progress we are referring to here (the right for LGBTQ+ people to exist peacefully), I’m curious how, and for whom, this could possibly cause “regression”? Who is personally losing anything or having any kind of negative difference in their lives in any way whatsoever by the existence of these people?
Edit: for anyone too thick to get what I’m saying: I know there are people who believe allowing LGBTQ+ people to exist is “regressive,” that’s literally my point. What I’m saying t is that there’s no rational, logically sound argument that anyone could make that would somehow show allowing these people to live causes society to regress.
It’s just not a thing. It doesn’t matter how many times people repeat it.
Hold on, do you really believe there’s no one in the world who thinks accepting and supporting the LGBTQ+ community is a bad thing? Because if you do, I have some really bad news for you…
Perhaps you misunderstood… Of course there are. I’m just saying their position is irrational. And I’m saying that there is no objective argument that they could make that would show denying LGBTQ+ people the right to exist to be beneficial to anybody anywhere.
Rational. Objective. What on earth makes you think bigotry has ever been rational? You know that only 60 years ago in the US there were people openly opposed to the idea of black people sitting next to them on a bus, right? There was never anything objective or rational about it, just pure ignorance.
I don’t think those people would use the term “regressive,” because that term has inherent negative connotations. Their goal isn’t so much to “regress” as it is to “conserve” - maintain the values and power structures of the past. What a progressive would call progress, they would see as a decline. What they’re losing by ceding LGBTQ+ rights is more subtle than losing their own rights - they’re losing (or think they’re losing) status, privilege, moral authority. Their position in the social hierarchy drops if there are fewer people to look down on.
Dude in the article for example ? Do you think he sees it as progress ? 😅
See my edit.
Yeah this seems somewhat what i said, if my understanding is correct.
According to many religions, not being straight is a sin. Therefore being friendly towards LGBT ppl is bad, therefore It’s regressive.
Nobody is against what they believe is best. Calling something “progressive” is like calling the DRPK “democratic”, it’s just a name. Whether something progresses humanity is not objective, it’s subjective.
Maybe the DRPK example is not the best since it’s clearly not democratic for almost all people, but you get what I mean.
According to many religions, not being straight is a sin. Therefore being friendly towards LGBT ppl is bad, therefore It’s regressive.
Nobody is against what they believe is best. Calling something “progressive” is like calling the DRPK “democratic”, it’s just a name. Whether something progresses humanity is not objective, it’s subjective.
Maybe the DRPK example is not the best since it’s clearly not democratic for almost all people, but you get what I mean.
Not for religion, it is about power and control.
Progress in general is just a term. What people consider to be “progressive” can change from person to person. There’s also the obvious risk of progressing too quickly before things can stabilize, you could progress a third world country far quicker than their people/culture would be able to keep up, for example.
While I understand and agree with your general sentiment, but the idea that progress is actually progress just because it carries the term is a fallacy.
deleted by creator
People who abuse their families have jobs, vote and go to church.
We have an expression in Québec for people who either:
1- Defend someone else’s interests with more fervor than the other person themselves.
2- To have extremist values, thoughts or actions.
The expression is “Être plus catholique que le pape.” Or to be more Catholic than the pope himself.
Oh this guy definitely thinks himself the most holy Catholic person to ever live. He is light years away from the papacy in terms of ever being Pope, but definitely casually suggests to his followers that HE some random fuck in Texas would be a better Pope than the actual Pope
In Italian we say “more royalist than the king”. Btw, the Pope was criticized even by Italian politicians because “they know better” what the Catholic faith should be like. And I’m not referring to some minor party, but to the very backbone of the current government. It seems like the Pope is intentionally trying to mess up their whole electoral campaign based on tradicional family and morality.
Not very surprising considering the current government is far right and they always believe they know better than anyone else.
Right… but there’s a capital sin for this called “pride”, being religious they should realize their wrongdoing.
Oh man, they break so many of them all the time, I’m a saint compared to them even if I’m an atheist!
Heck, throw this at any of them when they talk about abortions or LGBTQ+
James 4:12 “There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?”
And they do like to speak God’s name in vain!
We have pretty much the same expression in English!
The modern church is the shell of the institution it once was. Which is a good thing. Let’s make it even less relevant than it already is.
The goal isn’t to make it hollow, the goal is to shrink the size proportional to honest participation, so that it doesn’t have an outsized influence on the general population.
If it was the whole turtle they would have burned the pedo-, excuse me, pries-cough cough child fucker at the stake for blasphemy.
Despite the evilness of the Catholic church as a whole, I’ve got to say I kinda like Pope Francis. Too bad the majority of religious leaders aren’t more like him.
He still protected sexual abusers like Cardinal McCarrick. He’s handled the PR of sexual abuse than his predecessors, but he hasn’t excommunicated a single abuser or enabler. He hasn’t turned any records over to law enforcement.
Religious leaders need better role models than the pope.
Aint Churh people one big family ? Not gonna turn one of their own if they don’t have to.
Don’t forget he basically said Charlie Hebdo had it coming.
Dude’s still an ass, he’s just a comparatively smaller ass than his predecessors.
He’s no saint, though.
What you’re mentioning is the equivalent of “huh, this pope gives us 10 fewer kicks in the nuts per day than the previous popes. I kinda like him!”
He wants to welcome lgbt people in the church? The reaction shouldn’t be “oh he’s so good!” It should be “about damn time, fuckers!”
Removed by mod
From the article:
“This is total war,” Matt wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “Francis is a clear and present danger not only to Catholics the world over but also to the whole world itself.”
Matt is the editor of a traditionalist newspaper. That guy needs to touch grass. How stupid can a person be?
deleted by creator
My brother in Happy Holidays, we are the winners. The only thing I am concerned about is whether there will be enough popcorn kernels available for us all. I’ve stocked up, almost 69 stones worth.
Yes Matt, the 86 years old dude without any power preaching about peace on another continent is very dangerous./s
Also, I somehow have a feeling that he doesn’t have the same opinion on Putin, who is actually a danger to the whole world.
Churches of all kinds are destroying themselves with politics.
good
laypeople in Tyler had complained and that he was making unorthodox claims.
Oh you.
Honestly, though: good for those Catholic laypeople in Texas to complain to the friggin’ Vatican that this guy is a compete nut job!
Give that writer a raise.
Tyler TX is also home to Idiot Child Louie Gohmert. There are churches and banks on every corner, and every time there’s new construction there’s a 50% chance it’s either a church or a bank.
Fun fact about Tyler, TX…
Ok I’m at a loss.
They have roses
If I remember right. A friend said that Tyler Texas is also where a bad racist act happened.
True for any Insert Texas name here
I mean the difference was it was during his lifetime which since 2000.
I mean it’s like that in Louisiana where I live to. But, I don’t think dragging a man to death is not considered par for the course even for texas
I really need to double check my comments
The dragging death was Jasper, Tx; somewhere around 2-3 hours south off the city of Tyler. Incidentally, it’s a half hour east of the county of Tyler. Also, the rabidness which with the law enforcement and community went after the violent actors in that incident showed pretty clearly what the common man in that area thought of racism.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
ROME (AP) — Pope Francis on Saturday forcibly removed the bishop of Tyler, Texas, a firebrand conservative prelate active on social media who has been a fierce critic of the pontiff and has come to symbolize the polarization within the U.S. Catholic hierarchy.
The Vatican never released the findings and Strickland had insisted he wouldn’t resign voluntarily, saying in media interviews that he was given a mandate to serve as bishop in 2012 by the late Pope Benedict XVI and couldn’t abdicate that responsibility.
Francis has not been shy about his concerns about the right wing in the U.S. Catholic hierarchy, which has been split between progressives and conservatives who long found support in the doctrinaire papacies of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, particularly on issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.
In comments to Portuguese Jesuits in August, Francis blasted the “backwardness” of these conservative bishops, saying they had replaced faith with ideology and that a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine allows for change over time.
The meeting debated a host of previously taboo issues, including women in governance roles and welcoming LGBTQ+ Catholics, but in the end, its final document didn’t veer from established doctrine.
In a social media post sent a few hours before the Vatican’s noon announcement, Strickland wrote a prayer about Christ being the “way, the truth and the life, yesterday, today and forever.” He had changed the handle from his previous @bishopoftyler to @BishStrickland.
The original article contains 1,068 words, the summary contains 241 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
@BishStrickland? Should be @BitchStrickland!
Good, can we suggest others to remove?
