First of all, this post doesn't break any new ground in the unusual circumstance of the bishop's removal. He was a high-profile conservative critic of the Pope, and on at least one occasion (involving the delayed release of a Vatican report on a former cardinal (McCarrick) in the Church's hierarchy, suspected in the sexual abuse of a teen altar boy and former seminarians) openly dared the pontiff to fire him. We haven't been given the details of grounds, say, allegations of violations of canon law to justify Strictland's removal. What we do know is Strictland has not challenged Pope Francis's election or legitimate authority, unlike some hard-right conservative critics. Silence seems to imply the Strictland move was politically motivated (as in Church politics). Some Church progressives suggest Strictland's public criticism undermines the pontiff's authority and teaching, causing confusion among the faithful.
Familiar readers may be familiar with my own background. I was born and raised into a conservative by-the-book Catholic family, which is consistent with our Franco-American heritage. My only maternal uncle was a diocesan priest/pastor in the Fall River diocese. He was a seminarian when his little sister, my mom, got married. Rules were very strict in the pre-Vatican days and he couldn't get permission to attend the wedding. My folks made a detour to Montreal on their honeymoon to visit him; he was at a rigorous, prestigious seminary where exams and answers were in Latin. He earned his licentiate in theology, similar to a Master's. He never desired a career in the hierarchy; he wanted to serve the people of God as a simple parish priest. He gave solid Scripture-based sermons in a post-Vatican era when it seemed all the other priests were trying to be socially relevant. He had a signature way of celebrating the Eucharist during Mass: he gave the slowest renditions of praying in raising the host and chalice: "THIS...IS...MY...BODY". He also had an unflappable personality; you couldn't get him to argue with you, and he loathed to repeat himself. He also is probably the most politically conservative person I've ever met. So, it surprised a few years back when I attended his funeral that he had this mischievous way of goading his progressive priest friends into arguments. Now being politically conservative didn't make him nostalgic for the old Latin Mass like me. The only thing he didn't want is the bishop reassigning him to a dying Franco-American parish because he was bilingual. (My grandparents were born American but the prior generation emigrated during the Quebec diaspora.) He took a low profile, not wanting the diocese meddling in his parish affairs. (Readers may remember my primary language was also French when I started school. It alarmed my kindergarten teacher so much they considered holding me back in kindergarten until they administered an IQ test. It bothered my folks so much despite being bilingual themselves, that they spoke only English around the kids, and to this day my 6 younger siblings blame me for their lack of fluency in French.)
I'm one of the few altar servers who served the entire transition of the Mass from Latin to English. I remember the old disciplines, like no meat on Fridays and fasting before mass (to take Holy Communion): my mom would pack my favorite sandwich (second to cretons) boiled egg because we attended mass before Catholic school. Mom used to fashion me vestments from old beach towels so I could play priest. I still recall at 8 years old my first mass as the cross-bearer heading the procession into mass. I continued until I graduated high school. I even ran the altar boys during high school winning the election because my more popular middle brother backed me. I also served daily mass for the base chaplain, who rewarded me by giving me his hardbound volume set of Aquinas' Summa Theologica. But I thought I had a vocation to the priesthood, not like my uncle but in a religious order like the Jesuits (like Pop Francis' Jesuits: he used to teach high school chemistry) or the Oblates, like my beloved philosophy professor, James Lonergan. In fact, I once interviewed with a Jesuit at the OLL men's dorm lobby; I never heard back from them, so I gather they didn't see me as a prospect.
What happened to my vocation? In a word, girls. I never had a car until I joined the Navy, which constrained my dating options (plus I was only 16 starting college). As readers probably know, all priests take celibacy vows. I had crushes on a couple of gorgeous girls and started dating one of them. Nothing serious came from the relationships, but it was enough for me to defer thoughts of going to seminary. But the real issue really started with what I saw as more of a secular humanist perspective.in the Church; there was less of a doctrinal emphasis (prayer, Scripture, repentance and the sacraments) and more on practical living-your-faith in service to others. To be sure, there is a lot of value to doing charitable acts.
But I remember as early as sixth grade attending Notre Dame School in east Fall River (like my maternal grandfather and uncle had: Dad was securing family housing at a SC AFB, and we were staying at Grandfather's). Our class project was "adopting" a poor black family in DC. A lot of it was focused on things like food and clothing. But the one thing that sticks out in my memory is the teacher told us the dad's cigarette brand was Pall Mall, the brand my late Dad used to smoke before he kicked the habit. I really didn't think it was a good thing to enabling a dangerous habit, and even back then I felt a sense of moral hazard, of reinforcing dependance on others. I remember when Dad died (we had all grown up and living elsewhere), we were flooded with food from friends. We were grateful that Mom had something less to worry about while we were dealing with logistics of the funeral. But the point is, it wasn't an ongoing thing, and of course we could afford to eat out.
For me, I loved the old mass, I felt part of a global community, knowing in any Catholic church, I could celebrate the same liturgy, respond in the same way, in the same familiar language, I loved sung masses, Gregorian chants, the smell of incense, the ancient rituals, the colorful vestments, the huge cathedrals which seemed to touch the majesty of God. The Latin didn't bother me--I had already memorized the liturgy by grade school, and matching translations appeared parallel in missals. It was BEAUTIFUL The Church didn't give the faithful a choice. I do think there are some out-of-the-way churches where you can "legally" attend a Latin mass but I haven't been to one since my childhood. By high schol, guitar masses were commonplace. They had their own charm, but I didn't like masses changing to appease the culture, to appear "more relevant". Another example: when my grandfather's home Notre Dame de Lourdes Cathedral was destroyed by a fire in 1982, it was replaced by an ordinary one-story building. (The church eventually closed in 2018 due to falling attendance and expenses; my uncle served as a parochial vicar early in his career after ordination.)
I see the Church as an independent entity, as a sometimes critic of an increasingly sexually obsessed culture. I didn't like to see the Church abandoning its rich heritage to desperately appeal to younger people. There were a few incidents that contributed to my decision to drop the idea of becoming a priest. First the "jump the shark" moment was at a mass at UT/Austin. The priest actually delivered a sermon based on singer Olivia Newton-John's "Have You Never Been Mellow?" Seriously, dude? Then there were a couple of incidents involving ideological feminists while I was part of UH's Catholic Newman. One was when I was recruited as a last-minute replacement for a missing lector. I was subsequently attacked for replacing the "women"'s lector spot; I didn't know the circumstances of the replacement and thought I was doing a favor for the community. Second, the ideologues objected to the "sexist" line in the ancient Nicene Creed and literally scratched out the offending word in ink: "for us men and for salvation". This is beyond stupid; "men" is a general term implying both genders. The Church has recognized female saints for centuries, long before political correctness. I've got a Mom, 4 sisters and 9 nieces; I have 3 goddaughters and no godsons. [The family thinks I have a preference for girl babies.] The idea that I don't love and respect them as equally worthy of salvation is ludicrous. I remember at OLL, a group of coeds invited me to their lunch table at the cafeteria, and I was told, "We hear you treat girls just like the guys." I almost gagged on my food, saying "I hope not. I'm attracted to girls." But I have zero tolerance for petty ideological rubbish. The idea that the Nicene Creed was composed by male bigots is judgmental presentist rubbish.
I don't identify with traditionalist Catholics who reject the legitimate election and authority of Pope Francis. This doesn't mean I haven't, even publicly, disagreed with the pontiff as familiar readers know, especially when he strays from matters of faith and morals; perhaps that is inspired by his conventional left wing (Peronist?) political views. [God only knows how he's taken Milei's win in his homeland Argentina.] His strident rejection of "unfettered" economic liberalism/capitalism is not without precedent in social encyclicals; I have dealt with the strawman of "social Darwinism" and the distortions of Herbert Spencer's thought in past posts. A lot of what I've read from Pope Francis (on climate change, etc.), seems like a regurgitation of unoriginal "progressive" consensus thought on an issue designed, in my opinion, to accommodate the mainstream media and culture. As a conservative Catholic, I feel more like the spirit of John the Baptist who stood in judgment of King Herod. I want my Church to challenge an increasingly sexually obsessed culture and abortion acceptance, not try to appease it in a futile attempt at social relevance.
I as an academic have to say I loved Fracis' predecessor, Benedict XVI, a world-class theologian. In describing our conservative opposition to the policies of Pope Francis, here is perhaps no better place to start than Francis's 2021 reversal of Benedict's 2007 Summorum Pontificum, particularly relevant for its liberalization in allowing celebration of the 1962 version of the Tridentine (Latin) mass where there was sufficient local interest. Francis considers a traditional mass as a threat to the novus ordo, as "divisive", as being "ideological", an implicit rejection of Vatican II; he basically puts the burden of proof on any such mass; he empowers bishops to rein in the liturgy and puts speed bumps in its place including assessing the motivation relative to Vatican II. We see this as contrary to the principle of subsidiarity, tolerance within the Church, presumptuous and judgmental in nature. It is already hard enough to find priests who are comfortable with celebrating a liturgy phased out nearly 6 decades ago, before most were even born. If anyone is ideological and divisive, it is Francis himself.
There are other sore points we conservative Catholics have with Pope Francis, one of them has to do with prominent Catholics, especially pro-choice Catholics like Biden and Pelosi, who continue to take the Eucharist at mass. Pope Francis is uncomfortable with the idea of disciplining Catholic politicians, seeing those as political, not pastoral in nature. Make no mistake: Francis is consistent with the Church's consistent opposition to the practice since the Didache. But Pelosi and other Catholics in Name Only have argued that a theological/philosophical difference on the timing of ensoulment of abortion (based on an obsolete notion that the preborn child goes through stages before becoming human) justifies their acceptance of abortion in public policy. This is inconsistent with the Church's teachings and leads to confusion among the faithful. A weak response from the Church undermines her credibility.
Perhaps the most controversy, which lies at the heart of the Strictland controversy, involves gays and the Church's traditional moral objections to homosexual activities and extramarital sex under the definition of marriage between a man and woman. Francis has been even more reluctant to appear as politically incorrect (vs John the Baptist), even suggesting same-gender unions may be blessed. This is just the latest in Pope Francis' strategic ambiguity since his infamous "Who am I to judge?"
On this general topic, Strictland, appointed by Benedict, has been particularly high profile on a couple of points:
- The McCarrick situation discussed above. McCarrick is alleged to have sexually abused boys, seminarians and priests over 4 decades as bishop and cardinal. There have been reports that there are disproportionate numbers of gays in the priesthood and the Church's hierarchy: has that been a corrupting factor in the Church's slow walk in the sex abuse scandal that has rocked the Church in recent decades?
- The LA Dodgers decided to honor the satirical anti-Catholic LGBTQ+ drag group Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and Bishop Strictland showed up to head a recent protest prayer rally.
In closing comments, let me first point out that my criticisms of Pope Francis are unpopular, even within my family. One of my nephews had written a positive Facebook post on Francis, and I posted a more critical response. I expected that he would not agree and would contradict me, and I was cool with that. What I did not expect was for him to delete my comment, saying it was his post and he had the right to censor me. As a libertarian I don't accept censorship.
Second, I do not have anything against gays. I've had a live-and-let-live attitude; I personally knew a couple of Navy lesbians while I was an ensign (when the military objected to their service). I remember in my OLL freshman psychology textbook, it described how same gender sex behavior appeared across species. I didn't understand its functional purpose but I accepted its factual basis. As to the Church I don't mind a chaste gay priest, but that's not what McCarrick did. My priest uncle once told me that potential priests were screened to ensure that they had a normal/straight sexual inclination, and I wondered how they did that. Now none of my 21 nephews and nieces have ever talked to me about their love lives, so there might be gays I'm not aware of, but I think at least 3 are or have been in nontraditional relationships. One of them I just heard about in a response to a birthday message I sent out. He mentioned in passing some dude had been serving in Africa. Look, I remember these relatives as young kids, and I love them unconditionally; I want them to be happy in their lives. At the same time, I'm not married and I realize the Church's position on extramarital sex also applies to me.
Finally, the pope's behavior is counter-productive. The fact is, this pope has been trying to remake the Church hierarchy to his progressive preferences; he's focused on diversity and watering down conservative voices. He's targeting conservatives for all his challenges; probably the key reason I didn't become a priest was I was more of a "back to basics" Catholic where faith, prayer and repentance make more than a passing reference in a homily. In the decades that have followed, mass attendance has declined to no better than that for Protestants. Conservatives have been the most persistent churchgoers and probably the highest contributors.
