Pope Francis Removes Ultra-Conservative Texas Bishop

[Davie]

Pope Francis removes a leading US conservative critic as bishop of Tyler, Texas.

” 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. Now, the Vatican said Francis had “relieved” Bishop Joseph Strickland of the pastoral governance of Tyler, Texas.

https://apnews.com/article/pope-tyler-bishop-strickland-removed-0f9f0be7d5938b36d6e7ead8c33e5150

[Carolyn Marie]

Yes, I thought this was a prudent move on the Pope's part.  He has a whole bunch of such ultra conservative Bishops in the U.S., and some elsewhere as well, who have been a thorn in his side.  It won't stop the Bishop from continuing to agitate, though, and he'll likely take a bunch of parishioners to wherever he ends up.

 

Carolyn Marie

[MaeBe]

This all smacks of the Benedict vs Francis schism that happened when Benedict abdicated. This bishop reads like a traditionalist, who would fit easily into the Benedict camp, who chaffed at the "progressive" agenda of Francis. I am no longer Catholic, but I have personal connections that keep me interested in and tangentially aware of the quiet tug of war that has been going on in the US Catholic space. It's not staying very quiet anymore.

 

Traditionalism for the sake of purity, one might say, is the stance of the recalcitrant bishop. Who speaks Latin? No one conversationally! But it's of utmost importance to conduct Mass in the tongue! Why? Who does it serve? How does it help the Church in this modern era? It serves the priests that had to learn to read it. The enlightened few, who are "educated enough" to lead their flock to heaven. Power games.

 

Does a public censuring of a hardliner absolve Francis of anything? No, but it's obvious he is concerned with the relevancy of the Church in the modern era. A "closed doors summit" discussing "taboo issues", such as the inclusion of women and the acceptance of LGBTQ+ peoples, is the Church talking about being more modern--albeit in a secretive way that ended up resulting in very little, if any, change. However, I think it's a good thing they are talking about the Church being more inclusive. Their history is fraught with transgressions against humanity, hubris beyond compare, greed and corruption in the name of God, but this bishop will have none of owning the rank past of the Catholic Church. In fact, from afar it seems as if he prefers it; this starch-pressed traditionalist does not car about the life of the church...only that it remains "pure".

[Ivy]

7 hours ago, MaeBe said:

Who speaks Latin? No one conversationally! But it's of utmost importance to conduct Mass in the tongue! Why?

Makes it sound like a spell at Hogwarts, LOL.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

1 hour ago, Ivy said:

Makes it sound like a spell at Hogwarts, LOL.

Actually, it does!

 

Ever heard of "hocus pocus?"  Its actually a corruption of part of the Latin Mass.  "Hoc est corpus meum" from the words of institution at Communion. 

 

I'm not Catholic, and never have been.  I grew up Orthodox, and worship was done in Greek.  Not modern Greek either, but old "Koine" Greek.  Understandable to modern Greek speakers, but IDK why they do it.  The irony of trying to continue the Latin Mass is that Latin was originally used as a way to make understanding the Mass and the Scriptures easier.  The original language translation was called "Vulgate" which meant the language of the people.  The vast majority of Christians accept (or would never even question) the idea that worship and reading should be done in your primary language. 

 

Aside from worship language issues, by getting rid of Strickland the Pope has likely increased the chances of schism.  There's a growing group of hardline conservative Catholics, and I suspect the only reason they haven't split already is that the doctrine of "Papal Infallibility" has long been a tenet of the hardliners and creates a bit of cognitive dissonance. 

 

 

[emeraldmountain]

I'm not convinced that this is completely related to the Catholic church earnestly trying to help the LGBTQ+ community, as the article states that "most recently, Strickland had criticized Francis’ monthlong closed-door debate on making the church more welcoming and responsive to the needs of Catholics today. 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."

 

However, I am encouraged by the growing strength of the LGBTQ+ community and women's rights in the USA, especially in the transgender community, in successfully getting legislation passed (i.e.: Ohioans recently voting to protect abortion rights) and successful lawsuits temporarily halting/stopping anti-trans legislation. Let us all keep fighting for our rights and make sure to donate to our causes if you have the means.

[lillyinmn]

On 11/12/2023 at 10:14 AM, awkward-yet-sweet said:

The irony of trying to continue the Latin Mass is that Latin was originally used as a way to make understanding the Mass and the Scriptures easier.

You are spot on about that.  The same argument applies regarding the King James Version of the Bible.  Some people think that is a purer version of the word of God than modern translations.  At one time, in the 17th century it was the best English translation of the bible available.  It was a remarkable achievement, and its impact on the English language is significant.  But now it's just arcane and suitable only for drama (compared to modern translations).

 

Times change, and faith, practice and the language of faith need to change to be relevant to the world that exists---not the world some nostalgic people wish still existed.