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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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 ? 😅
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.
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.
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.
