Another week and yet another headline about Pope Francis feuding with a doctrinally conservative American prelate.
It’s become an all-too-common story and one that the legacy media often can’t resist.
It was late last month that the pope lamented what he called a “reactionary” Catholic church in the United States, where he said political ideology had replaced faith. Pope Francis had made the comments on August 5 in a private meeting in Lisbon — published three weeks later by the Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica — with members of the Jesuit order, of which he is a member, during his trip for World Youth Day.
The pope’s comments, and the expected fallout, were widely covered by both the secular and Catholic press in the United States and abroad.
The latest salvo in this transatlantic war-of-words took place last week, on Sept. 11, when The Pillar reported that the pope had “discussed with Vatican officials the prospect of requesting the resignation of Bishop Joseph Strickland of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas.”
This is what The Pillar reported:
The pope met Sept. 9 with Archbishop Robert Prevost, OSA, head of the Dicastery for Bishops, and Archbishop Christophe Pierre, apostolic nuncio to the United States — both cardinals-elect.
Several sources close to the dicastery told The Pillar ahead of the meeting that the prelates would present the pope with the results of an apostolic visitation of Stickland’s diocese, conducted earlier this year, as well as subsequent public actions by the bishop, who has emerged as an outspoken critic of the Holy Father.
“The situation of Bishop Strickland is the agenda,” one senior official close to the dicastery told The Pillar, “and the expectation is that the Holy Father will be requesting his resignation — that will certainly be the recommendation put to him.”
While noting that the papal audience did not exclusively concern the Bishop of Tyler, who has previously accused the pope of having a “program [for] undermining the Deposit of Faith,” the official said that Strickland’s case was set to be the “primary point of discussion.”
“There are two aspects,” the official said, “there is the matter of the public scandal from all these comments about the pope and the synod, but there are also real problems in the diocese. Those were the focus of the visitation; there are concerns in the diocese about governance, about financial matters, about basic prudence.”
At a time were opinions are everywhere, facts and information such as this is very important. Hold that thought.
As for the story itself, could Pope Francis have been referring to Strickland when he made those comments last month about the U.S. church? This may have to do with next month’s much-anticipated Synod of Synodality that will take place at the Vatican.
Here’s why.
The Texas diocese is led by one of the most publicly outspoken U.S. bishops (especially in Catholic social media). It’s also true that the Vatican had been investigating Strickland’s leadership and ability to lead the diocese. It’s also hard to separate what Strickland may have been doing as bishop to what he was publicly saying about this pontiff.
As background, Crux reported the following. It’s crucial to note the role, in press coverage of this drama, of America’s most outspoken Catholic priest among those seeking changes in Catholic ministry and teachings related to LGBTQ+ issues.
In response to Bishop Joseph Strickland’s claim that Pope Francis’s looming Synod of Bishops on Synodality risks unorthodox outcomes which could be “schismatic,” Jesuit Father James Martin, among the Americans chosen by Francis to attend the synod, questioned what is schismatic about “asking how the Church might grow?”
“I don’t think that asking how the Church might grow – as it has on many issues, like slavery, ecumenical relations, and so on – is in any way schismatic,” Martin, the editor-at-large of America Magazine and a longtime leader in outreach to LGBTQ+ Catholics, told Crux Aug. 24.
“In point of fact, this is a process that the Holy Father is asking us to participate in,” Martin explained. “In doing this, we are in union with the Successor of St. Peter, who is asking us to listen to the Holy Spirit. As such, it’s the definition of orthodoxy.”
Those comments, Crux reported, came as a result of what Strickland had said just three days earlier. Here’s the same Crux story:
Strickland, who leads the Diocese of Tyler, Texas, made the claims in a pastoral letter published Aug. 22, where he warns of “the evils that threaten us,” and highlights seven “basic truths” of the faith that are under threat because of the intentions of some involved with the synodal process.
According to Strickland, those “basic truths” include:
* That Christ established only the Catholic Church.
* That it is sacrilege for anyone to unworthily receive communion.
* That marriage is between one man and one woman.
* That every human person is created in the image and likeness of God and shouldn’t be supported in attempts to reject their biological identity.
* That sexual activity outside of marriage is a grave sin.
* That belief that all men and women will be saved regardless of how they live their lives is false and dangerous.
* That in order to follow Jesus Christ all must willingly choose to take up their cross.
“We must hold fast to these truths and be wary of any attempts to present an alternative to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or to push for a faith that speaks of dialogue and brotherhood, while attempting to remove the fatherhood of God,” Strickland wrote. “When we seek to innovate upon what God in His great mercy has given us, we find ourselves upon treacherous ground.”
Those are fighting words for doctrinal progressives in 21st century Catholicism. They may also be tied to why Strickland could be removed.
There’s lots to unpack here.
First, no surprise that this pope doesn’t get along with some U.S. clergy. That’s not new. What is new are the most-recent comments in the context of the pending synod.
Second, in terms of journalism, kudos to The Pillar for breaking a very big story. It’s no surprise. It’s been increasingly true that independent news organizations — ones supported by donors and readers — who are doing some of the best reporting (especially religion reporting) out there these days.
Too many in legacy media and some in the religious press have agendas tied to, well, political ideology. It’s why news organizations like The Free Press exist. The Pillar, on the other hand, has done an exceptional job of reporting facts. It was in April 2021 post that I expressed great admiration for the work The Pillar was doing.
Here’s a sample of what I wrote at the time:
The Pillar has it all: a website, email newsletter and podcast. All of them deliver up-to-date reporting on the church as well as analysis.
One of its strengths is its investigative journalism. They are taking the time to cover stories other publications — secular and religious — are not covering. While high standards and fairness are welcome addition to journalism at this time, especially when reporting on very important issues around religion and faith, this is a site that also can be innovative in its storytelling.
In a recent post under the headline “A Matter of Trust”, Ed Condon — who along with JD Flynn co-founded The Pillar — wrote the following:
We aren’t big on making a noise about “us,” and our general philosophy is that real news advertises itself.
We don’t run ads on our site, so we don’t make any money from “clicks” or page views. That means there’s no incentive — and no reward — for us to write click bait headlines or fill the site up with spam.
It also means that when you read something on The Pillar, it’s because we think we’re bringing something new to the story, an angle or expertise you can’t read somewhere else. Even better, whenever possible, it’s because we’re reporting something you simply can’t read anywhere else.
Case in point: yesterday, we broke the news that on Saturday Pope Francis met with the nuncio to the United States and the prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Bishops to discuss Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas.
Specifically, they met to discuss asking for his resignation. That’s a big deal.
The next part is also important:
Google around and you can find dozens of opinion pieces fulminating for and against Bishop Strickland, and YouTube videos of talking heads telling you exactly what they think, and therefore what you should think, about this story.
But here’s the thing: they’re all riffing on the news, on our story, which only we reported. That’s business as usual, and it’s fine by us. We report the news, other people tell you their opinions. That’s how we like it. But having an opinion is easy, and cheap. Reporting the news isn’t.
It takes years of relationship building, months of conversations you can’t be sure will lead anywhere, and weeks of locking down who is in town and what’s on their agenda before it happens.
If it was easy to find out who is advising the pope to do what about whom, everyone would do it.
Excellent point and one I used to tell my journalism students when I taught at The King’s College in New York City. And there is this point, as well: Opinion is cheap. Information is expensive, in terms of time and money.
Indeed, most of what we have been seeing is “riffing” — The Pillar’s words, not mine — on the news, and some of it was pretty bad journalism.
The Pillar beat everyone to a big story. That happens. The key for those outlets is to try and write a follow-up or uncover some new nugget of news that gets them back into the story.
Instead, we saw analysis like this from Religion News Service:
As rumors swirl that Pope Francis may ask for the resignation of Catholic Bishop Joseph Strickland, the firebrand conservative who oversees the Diocese of Tyler in Texas said he has heard nothing from the Vatican but signaled he would not give up his post voluntarily.
According to public Vatican records, Pope Francis met on Saturday with Archbishop Robert Prevost, prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Bishops, and Archbishop Christophe Pierre, the papal nuncio, or ambassador, to the United States, among others. What the three discussed in the meeting was not made public, but a conservative-leaning website, The Pillar, has claimed the meeting touched on whether to ask for the resignation of Strickland, who has stoked controversy in recent years for everything from resistance to COVID-19 vaccines to criticizing the pope.
The Vatican did not immediately respond to requests to confirm The Pillar’s account of the confab.
A few things: RNS called The Pillar “conservative-leaning” and began the article with the words “as rumors swirl.” Of course, they had to also pack in stuff like “resistance to COVID-19 vaccines.”
First, is The Pillar “conservative-leaning” because they support church doctrine on crucial issues (at GetReligion, we often call this “pro-Catechism”) and give that side equal weight in news coverage? My guess is that has to be it, but also calling it that to distinguish it as being out of the mainstream news ecosystem. In other words, not one of us.
Second, starting a story with “as rumors swirl” is not the way to do it. There are other ways, like using “reportedly” or “according to a report.” I’m not a fan of those, but it’s better than reporting a rumor or saying there are rumors out there. When in doubt, why not tell readers the source of the information that is being reported?
The Pillar, in that aforementioned post meant to drum up paying subscribers, added this: “We want to keep breaking the news, setting public conversation in the life of the Church, and making sure that conversation has the facts.”
Facts are good. That’s what I expect all journalism outfits to do. For example, RNS did it right when they contacted Strickland for their story in order to get his reaction to it all. This is the key section:
Reached by email on Tuesday, Strickland told Religion News Service he was unaware of any resignation request from the Vatican, saying, “I have received no information on this from Rome.”
Asked whether he would resign if the pope asked, Strickland suggested he would resist, possibly forcing the Vatican to remove him.
“As a basic principle I cannot resign the mandate given to me by Pope Benedict the XVI,” he wrote. “Of course that mandate can be rescinded by Pope Francis, but I cannot voluntarily abandon the flock that I have been given charge of as a successor of the apostles.”
That should have been the lede on that RNS report. But what RNS did was better than what most everyone else who got beat by The Pillar — which was nothing. The mainstream press ignored what was the biggest Catholic story last week and arguably of the whole summer.
One has to wonder whether the Synod of Synodality will get any coverage (doctrine is too hard!) next month. The Francis-Strickland affair would have been a great story to cover in order to get readers interested in what’s to come.
Instead, it’s independent news startups like The Pillar who are leading the way. Again and again.
Thus, many of you have had to adjust the way you get your news in the internet age. In the case of The Pillar, it’s not just how you get information about the church, but where. Kudos to them. I look forward to reading The Pillar and for them to lead the way in terms of news coverage during next month’s synod.
FIRST IMAGE: A Wikipedia Commons photo of Texas Bishop Joseph Strickland.
