Saturday, November 11, 2023


By Tim Rohr

BREAKING: Pope Francis personally removes America’s Bishop Joseph Strickland


Some key excerpts from the story:

In removing Bishop Strickland from the Diocese of Tyler, Texas, Pope Francis has canceled one of the most faithful, forthright and vocal bishops in the United States.

Bishop Strickland had been formally asked to resign by Pope Francis, in a request that came via the papal nuncio Cardinal Cristophe Pierre. Strickland declined this request, but now – upon the direct order of the Pope – is vacating his diocesan see.

a bishop’s ‘privation’ of office as being possible only in the face of guilt for ecclesiastical crimes (say, canonically illegal actions in regard to ecclesiastical property, contra cc. 1377 or 1389).”

Last year, Pope Francis removed Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres, another outspoken advocate of Catholic teaching, from the Diocese of Arecibo, Puerto Rico, without explanation, reportedly due to his support for conscience objections to COVID jab mandates.

Bishop Strickland, 65, is well known among LifeSite readers for his unequivocal defense of Catholic teaching, teaching that is often cast in confusion by papal statements or messages.

Also, there is some worthwhile YouTube commentary here @thecatholicman


It may surprise some, but I am, for now, going to take a contrarian view. And here it is:

The pope could never have touched Bishop Strickland had Strickland confined his "faithful, forthright" Catholic teaching to his diocese, the sheep for which he is canonically the shepherd. 

Every bishop is a direct apostolic descendant, and so long as said bishop shepherds his own flock within the prescripts of revelation and magisterially defined dogma and doctrine, no one, not even a wayward pope, can harm him. 

Strickland's "achilles heel" is that he went beyond his flock, and, via social media (mostly Twitter), addressed the rest of the Catholic World - over which he had (and has) no apostolic authority. 

Strickland personally demonstrated his willingness to go "out of bounds" when he personally showed up at a protest of the L.A. Dodgers game in protest of "pride night," during which the so-called "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" were honored by the Dodgers, and whereat Strickland delivered an address  condemning the "Sisters." 

Strickland's appearance in LA (not his diocese) made him a hero to Catholic conservatives and otherwise orthodox faithful; however, Strickland, in "strick (land)" legal terms, was out of his jurisdiction. 

Strickland would have been completely within his jurisdiction if he had remained home in Tyler, Texas - of which he is the Ordinary - and delivered the same address. 

I like Strickland, and as a deeply conservative Catholic, I want guys like Strickland to prevail. But...they MUST know how to do it. 

And going down in flames isn't the way. Maybe more later. 


  1. I'm glad Bp. Strickland didn't resign. But with the things he's done and said, he's either foolish or heroic. Or maybe he's both.

  2. He's practically a free-agent now... I could see him following in the footsteps of Huonder, Schneider, Vigano, Müller, Sarah, Burke and perhaps even Lefebvre himself. Off the top of my head, I can only count about 10 living bishops/cardinals that have publicly manifested heroic virtue, and Strickland is one of them.

  3. Will he go with the SSPX? And what about his seminarians? No canonical will be taken against them, of course, but will they be shown the door in other ways?

    1. I hope he goes with SSPX. At least at an institutional level they’ve certainly calmed-down/practically distanced themselves from their former ‘invalid’ ordinations and consecrations claims. And they are needing bishops really soon for all their ever-growing apostolates.

  4. I just learned that he is harboring Rosalind Moss. Maybe that had something to do with it. We’ll know if Stickland’s successor kicks her out.