I stand corrected; I had not yet seen Raymond Arroyo‘s interview with Bishop Strickland (I have now).

Please add any that I missed, but Bishop Strickland listed the following as the reasons for his removal given by Cardinal Pierre:

1. Did not implement the provisions of the popes motu Proprio suppressing the Latin mass.

2. there are “administrative issues“ of unknown, etiology in the diocese.

3. He lacks a “fraternal bond“ with his brother bishops. (I find that one interesting, because my bishop was the bishop of the neighboring diocese, and each of them stated that the other was a friend. I wonder what the measure of “fraternity“ is among bishops…)

Which of these three things is of a gravity to warrant depriving a bishop of his see? I think everyone should go and listen to Bishop Strickland‘s interview with Raymond Arroyo. I found bishop Strickland‘s comments very balanced, and lacking in the emotion I would have brought to (I did feel that Raymond was a bit over the top, but there are tons of reasons I don’t usually watch his show; that tendency is among them).

There is no Vatican decree spelling out the reasons for this action. There was no canonical process.

And I am not sure in what world anyone in Vatican City lives, in which they would think such an action would not the question. The decision makers still have not explained their decision (and I am clear for my part that they owe us no explanation, but an explanation of their seeming inconsistency would probably help the faithful… I don’t know…).

I’m open to hearing what I’ve missed, if anyone.