Denver, Colo., Apr 9, 2017 / 04:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In 1970, there was one priest for every 800 Catholics in the United States.
Today, that number has more than doubled, with one priest for every 1,800 Catholics.
Globally, the situation is worse. The number of Catholics per priest increased from 1,895 in 1980 to 3,126 in 2012, according to a report from CARA at Georgetown University. The Catholic Church in many parts of the world is experiencing what is being called a “priest shortage” or a “priest crisis.”
Last month, Pope Francis answered a question about the priest shortage in a March 8 interview published in the German weekly Die Zeit. The part that made headlines, of course, was that about married priests.
“Pope Francis open to allowing married priests in Catholic Church” read a USA Today headline. “Pope signals he’s open to married Catholic men becoming priests” said CNN.
But things are not as they might seem. Read a little deeper, and Pope Francis did not say that Fr. John Smith at the parish down the street can now ditch celibacy and go looking for a wife.
What the Holy Father did say is that he is open to exploring the possibility of proven men (‘viri probati,’ in Latin) who are married being ordained to the priesthood. Currently, such men, who are typically over the age of 35, are eligible for ordination to the permanent diaconate, but not the priesthood.
However, marriage was not the first solution to the priest shortage Pope Francis proposed. In fact, it was the last.
Initially, he didn’t even mention marriage.
Pressed specifically about the married priesthood, the Pope said: “optional celibacy is discussed, above all where priests are needed. But optional celibacy is not the solution.”
While Pope Francis perhaps signals an iota more of openness to the possibility of married priests in particular situations, his hesitance to open wide the doors to a widespread married priesthood is in line with his recent predecessors, St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, as well as the longstanding tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
So why is the Church in the West, even when facing a significant priest shortage, so reticent to get rid of a tradition of celibacy, if it is potentially keeping away additional candidates to the priesthood?
Why is celibacy the norm in the Western Church?
Fr. Gary Selin is a Roman Catholic priest and professor at St. John Vianney Seminary in Denver. His work Priestly Celibacy: Theological Foundations was published last year by CUA press.
While the debate about celibacy is often reduced to pragmatics – the difficulty of paying married priests more, the question of their full availability – this ignores the rich theological foundations of the celibate tradition, Fr. Selin told CNA.
One of the main reasons for this 2,000 year tradition is Christological, because it is based on the first celibate priest – Jesus.
“Jesus Christ himself never married, and there’s something about imitating the life our Lord in full that is very attractive,” Fr. Selin said.
“Interestingly, Jesus is never mentioned as a reason for celibacy. The next time you read about celibacy, try to see if they mention our Lord; oftentimes he is left out of the picture.”
Christ’s life of celibacy, while compatible with his mission of evangelization, would not have been compatible with marriage, because “he left his home and family in Nazareth in order to live as an itinerant preacher, consciously renouncing a permanent dwelling: ‘The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head,’” Fr. Selin said, refering Matthew 8:20.
Several times throughout the New Testament, Christ praises the celibate state. In Matthew 19:11-12, he answers a question from his disciples about marriage, saying that those who are able by grace to renounce marriage and sexual relations for the kingdom of heaven ought to do so.
“Of the three manners in which one is incapable of sexual activity, the third alone is voluntary: ‘eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs [emphasis added].’ These people do so ‘for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,’ that is, for the kingdom that Jesus was proclaiming and initiating,” Fr. Selin explained.
Nevertheless, it took a while for the “culture of celibacy” to catch on in the early Church, Fr. Selin said.
Christ came to earth amid a Jewish people and culture who were instructed since their first parents of Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28, 9:7) and were promised that their descendants would be “as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore” (Gen. 22:17). Being unmarried or barren was to be avoided for both practical and religious reasons, and was seen as a curse, or at least a lack of favor from God.
The apostles, too, were Jewish men who would have been a part of this culture. It is known that among them, at least St. Peter had been married at some time, because Scripture mentions his mother-in-law (Mt. 8:14-15).
St. John the Evangelist is thought by the Church fathers to be one of the only of the 12 apostles who was celibate, which is why Christ had a particular love for him, Fr. Selin said. Some of the other apostles likely were married, in keeping with Jewish customs, but it is thought that they practiced perpetual continence (chosen abstinence from sexual relations) once they became apostles for the rest of their lives. St. Paul the Apostle extols the celibate state, which he also kept, in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8.
Because marriage was such an integral part of Jewish culture, even for the apostles, early Church clergy were often, but not always, married. However, evidence suggests that these priests were asked to practice perfect continence once they had been ordained. Priests whose wives became pregnant after ordination could even be punished by suspension, Fr. Selin explained.
Early on in the Church, bishops were selected from the celibate priests, a tradition that stood before the mandatory celibate priesthood. Even today, Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, most of which allow for married priests, select their bishops from among celibate priests.
As the “culture of celibacy” became more established, it increasingly became the norm in the Church, until married men who applied for ordinations had to appeal to the Pope for special permission.
In the 11th century, St. Gregory VII issued a decree requiring all priests to be celibate and asked his bishops to enforce it. Celibacy has been the norm ever since in the Latin Rite, with special exceptions made for some Anglican and other Protestant pastors who convert to Catholicism.
A sign of the kingdom
Another reason the celibate priesthood is valued in the Church is because it bears witness to something greater than this world, Fr. Selin explained.
Benedict XVI once told priests that celibacy agitates the world so much because it is a sign of the kingdom to come.
“It is true that for the agnostic world, the world in which God does not enter, celibacy is a great scandal, because it shows exactly that God is considered and experienced as reality. With the eschatological dimension of celibacy, the future world of God enters into the reality of our time. And should this disappear?” Benedict XVI said in 2010.
Christ himself said that no one would be married or given in marriage in heaven, and therefore celibacy is a sign of the beatific vision (cf. Mt 22:30-32).
“Married life will pass away when we behold God face to face and all of us become part of the bridal Church,” Fr. Selin said. “The celibate is more of a direct symbol of that.”
Another value of celibacy is that it allows priests a greater intimacy with Christ in more fully imitating him, Fr. Selin noted.
“The priest is ordained to be Jesus for others, so he’s able to dedicate his whole body and soul first of all to God himself, and from that unity with Jesus he is able to serve the church,” he said.
“We can’t get that backwards,” he emphasized. Often, celibacy is presented for practical reasons of money and time, which aren’t sufficient reasons to maintain the tradition.
“That’s not sufficient and that doesn’t fill the heart of a celibate, because he first wants intimacy with God. Celibacy first is a great, profound intimacy with Christ.”
A married priest’s perspective: Don’t change celibate priesthood
Father Douglas Grandon is one of those rare exceptions – a married Roman Catholic priest.
He was a married Episcopalian priest when he and his family decided to enter the Catholic Church 14 years ago, and received permission from Benedict XVI to become a Catholic priest.
Even though Fr. Grandon recognizes the priest shortage, he said opening the doors to the married priesthood would not solve the root issue of that shortage.
“In my opinion, the key to solving the priest shortage is more commitment to what George Weigel calls evangelical Catholicism,” Fr. Grandon told CNA.
“Whether you’re Protestant or Catholic, vocations come from a very strong commitment to the basic commands of Jesus to preach the Gospel and make disciples. Wherever there’s this strong evangelical commitment, wherever priests are committed to deepening people’s faith and making them serious disciples, you have vocations. That is really the key.”
He also said that while he’s “ever so grateful” that St. John Paul II allowed for exceptions to the celibate priesthood in 1980 – allowing Protestant pastor converts like himself to become priests – he also sees the value of the celibate priesthood and does not advocate getting rid of it.
“…we really do believe the celibate vocation is a wonderful thing to be treasured, and we don’t want anything to undermine that special place of celibate priesthood,” he said.
“Jesus was celibate, Paul was celibate, some of the 12 were celibate, so that’s a special gift that God has given to the Catholic Church.”
Fr. Joshua J. Whitfield is another married priest, who resides in Dallas and is a columnist for The Dallas Morning News. He recently wrote about his experience as a married priest, but also said that he would not want the Church to change its celibacy norm.
“What we need is another Pentecost. That’s how the first ‘shortage’ was handled. The Twelve waited for the Holy Spirit, and he delivered,” Fr. Whitfield told CNA in e-mail comments.
“Seeing this crisis spiritually is what is practical. And it’s the only way we’re going to properly solve it…. I’m simply not convinced that the economics of (married priesthood) would result in either the growth of clergy or the Church.”
A glance at what the priest shortage looks like in the United States
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles is the largest diocese in the United States, clocking in at a Catholic population of 4,029,336, according to the P.J. Kenedy and Sons Official Catholic Directory.
With 1,051 diocesan and religious priests combined, the archdiocese has one priest for every 3,833 Catholics – more than double the national rate.
Despite the large Catholic population, which presents both “a great blessing and a great challenge”, Fr. Samuel Ward, the archdiocese’s associate sirector of vocations, told CNA he doesn’t hope for or anticipate any major changes to the practice of priestly celibacy.
“I believe in the great value of the celibate Roman Catholic priesthood,” he said.
He also sees great reason for hope. Recent upticks in the number of seminarians and young men considering the priesthood seems to be building positive momentum for vocations in future generations.
The trend is a national one as well – CARA reports that about 100 more men were ordained to the priesthood in 2016 than in 2010. Between 2005 and 2010, there was a difference of only 4.
In the Archdiocese of New York, the second largest diocese in the United States, there is a Catholic population of 2,642,740 and 1,198 diocesan and religious priests, meaning there is one priest for every 2,205 Catholics.
“I think we’re probably like most every other diocese in the country, in that over the past 40-50 years, the number of ordinations have not in any way kept pace with the number of priests who are retiring or dying,” said Joseph Zwilling, director of communications for the archdiocese.
It’s part of the reason why they recently underwent an extensive reorganization process, which included the closing and re-consolidation of numerous parishes, many of which had found themselves without a pastor in recent years.
“Rather than wait for it to hit crisis mode we wanted to be prudent and plan for what the future would look like here in the Archdiocese of New York,” Zwilling said.
Monsignor Peter Finn has been a priest in New York for 52 years, and as rector of St. Joseph’s Seminary for six years in the early 2000s, he has had several years’ experience forming priests. While he admits there is a shortage, he’s not convinced that doing away with celibacy would solve anything.
“After 52 years of priesthood I’m not really sure it would make any big difference,” he told CNA.
That’s because the crisis is not unique to the vocation of the priesthood, he said. The broader issue is a lack of commitment – not just to the priesthood, but to marriage and other vocations of consecrated life.
Fr. Selin echoed those sentiments.
“It goes deeper, it goes to a deep crisis of faith, a rampant materialism, and also at times a difficulty with making choices,” he said.
So if marriage won’t solve the problem, what will?
Schools, seminaries, and a culture of vocations
The Archdiocese of St. Louis, on the other hand, has not experienced such a drastic shortage. When compared with other larger dioceses in the country (those with 300,000 or more Catholics), the St. Louis Archdiocese has the most priests per capita: only 959 Catholics per priests, in 2014.
John Schwob, director of pastoral planning for the archdiocese, said this could be attributed to a number of things – large and active Catholic schools, a local diocesan seminary, and archbishops who have made vocations a pastoral priority.
“…going back to the beginning of our diocese in 1826, the early bishops made repeated trips to Europe to bring back religious and secular priests and religious men and women who built up strong Catholic parishes and schools,” he told CNA. “That has created momentum that has continued for nearly 200 years.”
These three things also ring true for the Diocese of Lincoln, which has a smaller population and a high priest-to-Catholic ratio: one priest for every 577 Catholics, which is less than one third of the national ratio.
As in St. Louis, Lincoln’s vocations director Fr. Robert Matya credits many of the diocese’s vocations to Catholic schools with priests and religious sisters.
“The vast majority of our vocations come from the kids in our Catholic school system,” Fr. Matya said.
“The unique thing about Lincoln is that the religion classes in all of our Catholic high schools are taught by priests or sisters, and that is not usually the case … the students just have greater exposure to priests and sisters than a kid who goes to high school somewhere else who doesn’t have a priest teach them or doesn’t have that interaction with a priest or a religious sister.”
The diocese also has two orders of women religious – the Holy Spirit Adoration sisters (or the Pink Sisters) and discalced, cloistered Carmelites – who pray particularly for priests and vocations.
Msgr. Timothy Thorburn, vicar general of the Lincoln diocese, said that when the Carmelite sisters moved to the diocese in the late ’90s, two local seminaries sprang up “almost overnight” – a diocesan minor seminary and a seminary for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter.
“Wherever priests are being formed the devil is going to be at work, and cloistered religious are what we would consider the marines in the fight with the powers of darkness, they’re the ones on the frontlines,” Msgr. Thorburn told CNA.
“So right in the midst of the establishment of these two seminaries, the Carmelite sisters… asked if they could look at building a monastery in our diocese.”
A commitment to authentic and orthodox Catholic teaching is also important for vocations, Msgr. Thorburn noted.
“I grew up in the ’60s and ’70s and ’80s, and many in the Church thought if we just became more hip, young people would be attracted to the priesthood and religious life … and the opposite occurred. Young people were repelled by that,” he said.
“They wanted to make a commitment, they wanted authentic Catholic teaching, the authentic Catholic faith, they didn’t want some half-baked, watered down version of the faith; that wasn’t attractive to them at all. And I’d say the same is true now. The priesthood will not become more attractive if somehow the Church says married men can be ordained.”
Pope Francis’ solutions: Prayer, fostering vocations, and the birth rate
Pope Francis, too, does not believe that the married priesthood is the solution to the priest shortage. Before he even mentioned the married priesthood to Die Zeit, the Pope talked about prayer.
“The first [response] – because I speak as a believer – the Lord told us to pray. Prayer, prayer is missing,” he told the paper.
Rose Sullivan, director of the National Conference of Diocesan Vocation Directors, and the mother of a seminarian who is about to be ordained, agrees with the Pope.
“We would not refer to it as a ‘priest shortage’ or a ‘vocation crisis.’ We would refer to it as a prayer crisis. God has not stopped calling people to their vocation, we’ve stopped listening; the noise of culture has gotten in the way,” she said.
“Scripture says: ‘Speak Lord for your servant is listening.’ So the question would be, are we listening? And I would say we could do a much better job at listening.”
Another solution proposed by Pope Francis: increasing the birth rate, which has plummeted in many parts of the Church, particularly in the west.
In some European countries, once the most Catholic region of the world, the birth rate has dipped so low that governments are coming up with unique ways to incentivize child-bearing.
“If there are no young men there can be no priests,” the Pope said.
The vocations of marriage and priesthood are therefore inter-related, said Fr. Ward.
“They compliment each other, and are dependent upon one another. If we don’t have families, we don’t have anything to do as priests, and families need priests for preaching and the sacraments.”
The third solution proposed by Pope Francis was working with young people and talking to them directly about vocations.
Many priests are able to trace their vocation back to a personal invitation, often made by one priest, as well as the witness of good and holy priests that were a significant part of their lives.
“A former vocation director took an informal poll, and he asked men, ‘What really got you thinking about the priesthood?’ And almost all of them said ‘because my pastor approached me’,” Fr. Selin related.
“It was the same thing with me. When a priest lives his priesthood with great joy and fidelity, he’s the most effective promoter of vocations, because a young man can see himself in him.”
Msgr. Thorburn added: “There is no shortage of vocations.”
“God is calling a sufficient number of men in the Western Church, who by our tradition he gives the gift of celibacy with the vocation. We just have to make a place for those seeds to fall on fertile ground.”
[…]
If some CWR readers might wish to conclude that the Jesuits are targeting non-Jesuits, we might be reminded of how they turned on even one of their own….
In the 1970s, yours truly found a way to withhold personal judgment against Cardinal Danielou, SJ, because it was still possible that the real story possibly was not yet known. The truth finally came out forty years later! Here’s a letter-to-the-editor, published in “Inside the Vatican,” August/Sept. 2012. It’s taped inside the cover of my copy of Danielou’s “Prayer as a Political Problem” (1965), a short piece well worth re-reading today:
_______________
THE LETTER: “The eminent Italian Vaticanist, Sandro Magister, wrote a disturbing article in your June-July issue on the evil machinations of the Jesuit Order against their confrere, Cardinal Jean Danielou (“The Quarantine Has Ended”). For years I and millions of Catholics and non-Catholics worldwide were convinced this brilliant Jesuit theologian had had a heart attack and died in the house of a prostitute whom he was supposedly frequenting. Instead, now–after 40 years–we finally know the truth the Jesuits have known for 40 years and never told the world: He was on an errand of mercy.
“Cardinal Danielou had gone to bring her money to pay for a lawyer capable of getting her husband out of prison. ‘The Jesuits conducted exhaustive investigations to discover the truth,’ Magister writes. ‘They ascertained his innocence. But they also shrouded the case in a silence that did not dispel the suspicions [!] [….]
“Shame on the Jesuits for their hostility to this holy man, this cardinal of Holy Mother Church, this brother who had the John-the-Baptist courage to tell his brothers the truth about themselves. I hope that some day the Church will canonize this holy man who spoke truth to power [!]” (Rev. Gino Dalpiaz, C.S., Chicago, Illinois, USA; RIP 2019).
_______________
So, why are Danielou and his book still valuable?
Partly because he counsels those intent on saving their souls that we also/therefore have a responsibility to get into the thick of things worldly and to leaven such affairs. A problematic message (Gaudium et Spes!), and, one motive behind today’s Church consultations (sic “synods”). IF they can rise above being exploited by “forwardist” ideologies external/internal to the perennial Catholic Church. The general challenge is summarized nicely in an adage long valued by those coming from long careers in private, public-private, and public agency trench warfare: “HOW TO COMMIT TRUTH, and GET AWAY WITH IT!”
Perhaps Synod 2024 can likewise become biblically “sly as foxes AND innocent as doves”?
Both always together,,,that is, to not exclude the so-called “backwardists” from outside “the bubble.” Such a reset could be a respected legacy for true consultation and open dialogue; for a distinct and accountable “Synod (of Bishops)” together with the one papacy; and for the faithful, everywhere, under the “universal call to holiness”—even including exiles in the mold of Cardinal Danielou.
If I may speculate, Bishop Strickland was removed because he stood for orthodoxy.
St. Athanasius, pray for us.
Bishop Strickland was removed for his fearless pro-life leadership, especially in private. His authentic, outspoken witness for the vulnerable unborn and sick was a constant irritation and embarrassment.
Only God judges the heart, but we have witnessed his peers curry favor with Death.
We don’t really know that yet. Only speculation.
Yes we do. Even the claim that Strickland has crossed some “line” in describing Francis as undermining the Deposit of Faith is preposterous. Francis has not only undermined the Deposit of Raith, he has boasted that he has. Francis has crossed this line continuously. Francis has smashed this line and led loud marching bands to accompany him and his acolytes in heresies while crossing this line of attacks on the Deposit of Faith.
It’s disgraceful that a faithful Bishop gets removed for mean tweets while the likes of Cupich, McElroy and Tucho Fernandez openly flirt with heresy (not to mention the even worse German Bishops) and not only are they not fired, but even get promoted.
Please God, let this trainwreck of a Pontificate come to an end.
#1. Bishop Strickland is still a bishop and possesses all the teaching authority that comes with being consecrated a bishop. For that reason he should attend the meetings of the USCCB.
#2. Bishop Strickland’s teaching authority in the future is likely to be an even more authoritative voice to many.
#3. With the internet at his disposal, it makes no difference where Bishop Strickland lives. Even if the Pope sends him to live in Ulan Bator, he still has a voice.
#4. A lesson to all bishops:in your meetings with other bishops, especially those sent by the Pope to do “visitations” or with meeting with the Pope himself or his Vatican Curia, make sure you’re wired. God knows how inclined people are to lie about what was discussed or not discussed in private. (Remember how Francis lied when he said that Vigano never told him about McCarrick?)
#5 Say what you will about the Bergolian Papacy – he’s legitimate, he’s apostate, he’s a heretic, the See of Peter is empty – there’s one thing that’s indisputably true i.e. he’s a force of disunity in the Church. He’s created division among Cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons, and laity. The very office of the Pope require that he teach clearly the Magisterium, maintain safely the Deposit of Faith and that he is an influence for unity in the Church. On these, this Pope is and will be judged.
I suggest that Bishop Strickland go on exile and join Auxiliary Bishop Schneider in his diocese of Astana, Kazakhstan (in Central Asia in the former Soviet Union) to consolidate their leadership of the anti-Pope Francis forces.
I imagine Bishop Strickland will have many opportunities to do good work in his own nation. But like Bishop Schneider, he might do a little traveling also. Bishop Schneider gets around.
🙂
Is it me or does it seem that Bishop Schneider is everywhere but his home diocese?
#4 might be a good idea for priests too.
However, an issue arises if there are things recorded that would imperil legitimate privacy concerns if revealed.
For example, presumable Bishop Strickland could release the Vatican’s list of things he did wrong rather than talking abstractly about powers at work (since he claimed TC was on it). But not if some items on the list are bound up with some third party’s private affairs.
Bishop Strickland left Pope Francis with no choice. That is why. The bishop whose celebrity status has obviously gone into his head by continuously attacking the Pope through the means of social media tweets to attract the world’s attention (in contrast to the more prudent Cardinals, Bishops, and presbyters who confine their critiques of the Pope’s teaching in the form of formal and discreet writings, talks, or dubias) has actually ceased functioning to be a true bishop a long time ago. In the theological principle called collegiality, bishops truly function only in a collegial manner with and under the Pope “cum et sub Petro” (Catechism and of the Catholic Church 883 to 885). In Strickland’s pride, he not only cut himself off from the College of Bishops under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome, but even positioned himself above the Pope by erroneously judging and slandering him with ever growing imflammatory rhetoric: “a heretic,” “an illegitimate Pope,” “satanic clown of a Pope,” “a usurper of the papal throne.” With these unhinged declarations Strickland has openly revealed his heretical sedevacantist views. His fellow bishops who conducted that June visitation (investigation) of him suggested that he resign. Preferring to come out the martyr of the sedevacantist anti-Pope Francis forces, Strickland resisted and declined. Pope Francis was left with no choice but to fire him.
Slander
Your quotes are not of Bisop Strickland, but of various other persons he quoted or shared. Given he has specifically, repeatedly, and continuously stated that Pope Francis is the Pope, and has the authority to remove him, and consistantly calls him Pope Francis, you can’t exactly claim he’s a sedevacantist without an explainer. You might say his statements are suspicious. So are the Pope’s. But they can be reasonably and charitably interpreted to be schism-free.
You ought to read the CCC more carefully, and include the rest of the chapter. “The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power” which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.” Vatican 2 (Lumen Gentium) has a bit about bishops receiving their authority from Christ, rather than being extensions of the Pope. So Bishop Strickland still has the teaching authority of the Apostles and the faculties for all of the Sacraments. He doesn’t have a diocese, but effectively, neither do many cardinals.
That Strickland crossed the line into sedevacantism can best be proven from a
sampling of relevant lines in his October 31, 2023 speech at the Rome Life Forum. Sedevacantism is the belief held by those who identify as Catholics yet claim that the office of the Pope is currently vacant and has been vacant since a certain point in history. In other words, the papal seat is vacant, from the Latin “sede vacante,” the seat being vacant. The Code of Canon Law 751 places sedevacantism alongside schism as the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Here below are Strickland’s open sedevacantist declaration of the papacy as presently vacant because for him Pope Francis is only a usurper of the papal throne and not the true pope:
“Would you now allow this one (Pope Francis) who has pushed aside the true Pope and has attempted to sit on a chair that is not his define what the Church is to be.”
“This usurper of Peter’s chair has counted life as nought, for he has endangered souls by proclaiming that they are justified before God as they are, with no need of repentance.”
The full address (video and transcript) is here linked below:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-strickland-catholics-alive-during-this-crisis-must-remember-they-were-born-for-this/
Your repeated lies about Bishop Strickland are typical of those who support and endorse the agenda of Pope Francis. It is little wonder that you hide your identity behind such a sycophantic acronym.
Please check out the link provided and watch the video or read the transcript of the Bishop’s speech. See whether your belief of what you perceive as lies about Strickland’s sedevacantism match with the fact and truth of the evidence given here.
Dear Pope Francis the Greater!
About Bishop Strickland’s Twitter commentary: is it sedevantist, or only ambivalent, or ambiguous, or only clear, or only speaking hyperbolically? If the last, then, yes, not the best way to “commit truth and get away with it.”
But, LIKEWISE, Pope Francis and his own informalities, pattern of appointees, photo ops, etc.… Is he an anti-pope as some falsely imagine, or only ambivalent, or deliberately ambiguous and unclear—or possibly only hyperbolic as when he places Pachamama in a niche under the same roof as the Real Presence, or at the Synod on Youth replaces his crozier with a Wiccan stang, or because Christianity and Islam are possibly co-existent religions (the proposed “fraternity” among the member of different religions), seems to propose a flattened “pluralism” of equivalent faiths, per se?
What’ the point of here repeating such polyglot and competing incoherences, contradistinction and apparent contradictions?
Cardinal Danielou (book mentioned above) speaks of an elementary and pagan-like Christian mentality, not yet fully purified and transfigured into the Faith. Cultural Catholics. This also alongside the world’s natural religions yet to be purified and transformed by genuine inculturation. All of these paganisms as a field of evangelization, not syncretism, in a world more radically threatened by atheism.
DANIELOU writes (1965):
“In a world threatened with atheism, the first care must be to defend awareness of sacred things wherever that may be found. That men are not content to dissociate themselves from God in the central acts of their lives shows that there is in them a religious ground [fraternity, but not pluralism?] in which the faith can grow. We have also to remember that Christianity demands personal commitment. Religion is connatural to the mass of mankind; and in a Christian country it is to be expected that many should know Christianity as a religion before they discover it as Revelation” (Prayer as a Political Problem).
The unresolved PROBLEM—let’s call it the urgent consultative/synodal problem—is to still clearly distinguish pre-Christian or natural religions from what in the West has actually become anti-Christian? In season and out of season. Not as in the 4th-century Arian redefinition of the Trinity, but the 21st-century redefinition of both the Church and Man himself (think Synodal Weg & camp followers).
In our moment of mutual cognitive dissonance and worse, in multiple settings, is there really a need for circular Russian roulette between the synod’s “aggregated, compiled and synthesized” forwardists, and the so-called “backwardists” quarantined to a new “periphery”?
Where’s the dialogue? If it’s broke, don’t leave it unfixed.
Clicked your link and read the transcript of Bishop Strickland’s talk. The quotes you attribute to the Bishop are in fact from a letter the Bishop was reading, from a friend of his. Bishop S made no derogatory or inflammatory remarks about Pope Francis in this talk.
Reading that friend’s letter as part of his speech, the mothballed bishop did not distance or disown its sedevacantist thought which clearly means he agreed with it and made it his own. This sedevacantist ranting of Strickland was a sort of exclamation point to a long sentence of boiling and developing mean imprudent attacks against Pope Francis that started when he endorsed Archbishop Vigano’s call for the Pope to resign back in 2018. The speech’s context also is important. This was a forum of kindred anti-Pope Francis crusaders which included celebrities who are known to often express sedevacantist ideas either explicitly or implicitly. These included John-Henry Westen, Michael Matt, Terry Barber, Scott Hahn, Deacon Keith Fournier, and Astana, Kazakhstan Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
Strickland did not use inflammatory speech…I don.t know where you read that..it is a lie…he can disagree with the pope as lots of bishops have…ie Germany and Belgium with no recourse…the truth will come out even if it is 40 years in the future
Sadly, I must agree with you. A once good Bishop has let others influence him and he has gone off the rails as have many other well meaning men of the cloth. The Pope does not seem to be a nice man, but he is the Pope.
I stand with Bishop Strickland.
Very confusing, news reporting agencies should provide why this happened from someone. He gave good answers on john henry, but why no one knows? Who was the group he was with at baseball game, were they ultra subversives? Were are the lawyer groups out their, they should be investigating and defending him, this doesn’t seem to be an isolated case..What does Bishop Barron say? Bishop Strickland please dont GI near Mel Gibson, he’s good at making movies,but has a twisted mind on the Catholic church.. God Bless you Bishop, and I love that you kept quoting John the Baptist during inter- view with John Henry, the greatest born of woman and born without original sin, and was murdered for defending marriage,
Poor Mel Gibson. I’d recommend staying away from some Catholic blogs that incentivize outrage also. Whatever causes division in the Body of Christ doesn’t come from God.
The Church & the Family are the last two things that stand in the way of an all powerful secular state. There are interests that want to destroy the moral authority of the Catholic Church & undermine the morale of the faithful. Let’s not make their job any easier.
Strickland can join Vigano in the camp of mothballed bishops. Like Vigano, in a few months or even earlier Strickland will find himself generally forgotten and irrelevant. To keep themselves in the media spotlight, they’ll just have to continue spewing out unhinged conspiracy theory-driven provocative attacks against Pope Francis in revenge for having fired them.
S. Aldrin,
Conspiracy theories & uncharitable comments can have something in common.
Yes, I totally agree with you, the disgraced bishop mixed both conspiracy theories and uncharitable comments in his attacks against Pope Francis.
I was thinking rather that truth may be in shorter supply when we comment uncharitably. There’s an incentive both in calumny & in conspiracies.
Yes, I totally agree with you again. The truth suffered and was indeed in short supply in Bishop Strickland’s relentless uncharitable and mean comments, or more appropriately called attacks, of Pope Francis.
Then lets drop “theories” and deal with some truths and FACTS. The Pope has made it much harder for faithful Catholics to attend a Latin Mass. In an era when few attend church, what exactly is the payoff for a move like that?? The Pope has also given a general seal of approval to public figures who not only tolerate but publicly CHAMPION the most radical position on abortion: here I mean, Biden, Pelosi, Whoopie Goldberg. Tells them they are wonderful, tells Biden to continue to go to Communion!! Not “theories”. FACT. That he would be mugging for the cameras with such people is a disgrace and gives scandal. He allows McCarrick to hang on for years when his disgusting inclinations were well known. He is “firing” Bishops and priests who have an absolute obligation to lead their flocks honestly in the beliefs of the church. Believe it or not, being Pope does NOT mean you are perfect, or always right. He is clearly unhappy with personal criticism and in this case might have struck back simply because he can. That is not a behavior for any Catholic to emulate, especially when the criticism is valid. I read today that the church now has given an OK to Trans people participating in weddings and Baptisms. No one is suggesting trans people should be arrested and jailed. Likewise it doesnt seem prudent to hold them up as examples to be emulated in religious matters. What will happen with the radical Synods can already be seen in the unorthodox stuff being pandered by the Bishops of Germany ( like blessing gay relationships) , NONE of whom have been halted or corrected by Francis.
The only answer you need – “I didn’t implement Traditionis Custodes because I can’t starve out part of my flock,” that’s it – and just be honest that this is an apostate pope and saying it out loud doesn’t make you schismatic. Quit being so mealy mouthed when you write about Bergoglio he wants to fundamentally remake the Church and destroy the faith…just say it.
Starve part of his flock?! Last time I checked the hosts consecrated at a Novus Ordo Mass become the true Body and Blood of Our Lord. I support the TLM but this is the type of hyperbole that does not help and may have contributed to his ouster.
So sad, it is true however that this “make a mess” papacy is certainly doing that…
Join the ranks of “white martyrdom” bishop…there are plenty of “wrongly accused priests” who have no “home.”
Worry not,however,this too shall pass & we’re almost assured that there will never be a Jesuit on the throne of St Peter. Pray God!
Pray for the pope we must!
Pray for a new Catholic pope we can!
Fr j, you are similar to Fr Altman who openly wished to have Pope Francis killed. Unbecoming of a priest who promised obedience to his superiors (declaring one’s obedience is due to Christ alone without the Pope is Protestantic).
Ass-ass-ination??? What an absurdly libelous idea, based on zero evidence! Such comments incite prayer for those lacking reason and charity toward fellow Catholics, toward the ordained. For shame, for shame. Some people truly rather imitate men than Christ.
meiron: Why and how could you unbelievably not know this? Here is a link to the news report of Fr. Altman’s remarks widely spread in the ultra conservative Catholic media calling for the killing of Pope Francis:
https://www.newsweek.com/priest-calls-pope-francis-killed-likens-him-devil-1836438
This subject of this OP is Bishop Strickland. You liken Strickland to Altman. No where has Bishop Strickland alluded or hinted to murder as a solution to the crisis the pope has created. Conflating Bishop Strickland’s words with Fr. Altman’s is unfair and uncharitable since the accusation is libelous. It is unfair and uncharitable rhetoric because it is non-factual.
Then you present information obtained from the MSM. It seems you are not aware that the MSM often holds liberal bias against the Church. Getting news from a Catholic site is more reliable, trustworthy, and verifiable.
I DO BELIEVE that you have tried but failed to be clever. I do believe that your obfuscation alone is clear.
I’m sorry, but did I read a different post from FrJ? I didn’t read that he wanted PF killed. Please be careful and charitable.
SueH: “be careful and charitable” That admonition should have been given to Bishop Strickland when he was criticizing the Pope. Also, read again carefully. There was just a “similarity” not “complete identity or likeness” between the malicious extremism of Fr j’s call to pray for a new Pope and Fr. Altman’s call to kill Pope Francis.
We need good priests and good bishops we don’t need to be cancelling them.
@PF the great. Do you think the German bishops are in communion with the Vicar?
Reason for Strickland’s firing? He chose to become a Catholic bishop behaving like a fundamentalist Protestant in being so dismissive of the idea that there is a church authority that he has to obey. Only Protestants reason out that they can bypass the Pope and profess obedience directly and solely to Christ.
It’s pride. Just like any pride, including gay pride, it is sinful. Bishop Strickland thought of himself as more Catholic than the Pope and that he alone (not the Pope) preaches the truth of the Gospel.
Can you possibly be this dense? So anything that comes from the mouth of Bergoglio is ipso facto a more truthful version of the Gospel than what is preached by anyone else? There is not the slightest justification for this papolatry in the history of the Church.
The Church has weathered terrible and sinful Popes in its 2,000 year existence. It will continue to do so.
It is glaringly obvious and extremely simple: Bishop Strickland is a believing Catholic, a faithful Christian, and Jorge Bergoglio hates all things authentically Catholic and tolerates only a perverted, humanist version of the Gospel.
Being orthodox doesn’t mean being loud, rash and imprudent. One can “tell it like it is” without being unnecessarily provocative or even rude. Pope Benedict always comported himself as a gentleman. Strickland purposefully poked his finger in Francis’ eye. He shouldn’t be surprised that Francis responded. One can’t have a Major stirring up the troops against a General…even if one disagrees with the General. Lots of ways Strickland could have handled things. Sadly he chose the “blaze of glory/self-promotion path”. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.
The Pope seems to want to sit in the chair to wield the stick and the authority of the church, then slip out of the chair when it comes to supporting eternal truths. I pray he makes the connection – his authority RESTS upon his allegiance TO the eternal Truths. Otherwise, he is really nothing but hot air and popery.
Bergoglio’s move to oust Strickland is so very rich, just following a Synod on Synodality, no less, about which he said “we should not be afraid to listen.” I guess a “synodal” Church is a bit like progressives who preach tolerance and aren’t, like CRT adherents who rail against racism by being racists, like those who hate conservatives but have bumper stickers reading “there is no room for hate.” Oh my, how very rich it all is.
I am 77 years old, literate and a life long Catholic. Before Bishop Strickland, I had never heard of the diocese of Tyler, Texas.
The church faces many challenges: persecutions, threats to religious liberty, loss of young people to the faith (I am amazed at how many people I meet day to day who say they were “raised Catholic.” ) Some simply label themselves as “non-practicing” Catholic. Mass attendance is way down along with vocations to religious life. People struggle to find meaning in their lives or to overcome destructive addictions. Secularism and irreligion are rampant in the West. And on and on.
With all these needs, what is the Vatican doing swatting away at a bishop in a small obscure diocese few people have even heard of? Bishop Strickland was not the primate of an important country or a cardinal archbishop of a major archdiocese. No public scandal is charged (we have not even been told what canonical crime he committed.)
I find myself wondering if there are some very insecure people in the Vatican who cannot stand the slightest criticism. Or, perhaps this is all political – a warning to American bishops to get in line and keep quiet (this from a church which describes itself as a “listening” church.) What is going on at the Vatican?
A Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church. And in accord with canon law cannot be opposed. According to Fr Gerald E Murray JCD there is no legal procedure by which he can be removed, for example, by a council of bishops and, or cardinals. Although he can remove himself voluntarily by resignation, or by excommunication Latae Sententiae. That would have to be proven, a difficult task. Nonetheless there’s no procedure to remove him.
What then? He can also be ignored insofar as he teaches error. Again, for error to rise to the level of heresy is a difficult presumption. Francis is meticulous in avoiding formal heresy. Nonetheless if it’s difficult to prove heresy, as in the instance of Pope Francis, it would be similarly difficult to prove disobedience on such a specified issue. A bishop, or a presbyter may remain inviolable to removal if he argues the merits of his position while avoiding the accusation of a person. Although he may request clarification, explanation citing error by discrete means. As did Fr Weinandy, and as Bishop Schneider who face to face directly requested that Pope Francis retract his misleading words of religious equanimity at Abu Dhabi. That made headlines and Schneider wasn’t sanctioned.
My understanding is that Mr. Strickland isn’t a priest. That said, he likely is orthodox. It is orthodoxy that is the threat to wolves in “shepherds” clothing. It is only because he had/has a large following that he was/is a threat.
Another person who likely isn’t a priest, Mr. Altman, has said that Francis is not the pope.
While I don’t agree with Mr. Strickland’s beliefs even a person who is “90% Catholic” is better than someone who is a traitor.
If there is any truth that those can gained from this, it is that those who are “theological experts” (i.e. “bishops”) know enough to gravely doubt the orthodoxy of Francis. Of course, there have been and are sedevancantists who don’t believe that any person who has lived in the Vatican and claimed the papal power since Pope Pius XII has been legitimate. But they are considered fringe.
Given the propensity of opposition from a slew of U.S intractable prelates to some pronouncements and initiatives of Pope Francis, it may be time for them to call for a new pontifical seat and elect from their number a new pontiff of the U.S. RCC which properly could then be called ‘The Traditional Catholic Church of the United States’ complete with a new pontifical seat to which they could name from their number a novel pontiff. He would be the first Ustater, i.e., citizen of the U.S., at the Chair of Peter, thereby, to the intractable prelates in the U.S, the authentic seat of Catholic traditional integrity salvaged for the greater glory of the Catholic Faith.
In brief, liquidated respect toward Rome, U.S. prelates should call it quits, move on, and fashion at home, in the U.S., what they want. True, disaffected U.S priests and prelates could wait for the next opportunity to elect in Rome another pope upon the death or resignation of the present pontiff. But why wait? Do not put off what you can do now. Proceed with due alacrity the ‘American’ way.