Leo XIV Derangement Syndrome: Vol. 1
In which the pope is given a litmus test.
In reviewing the Traditionalist reaction to our new Holy Father, I have seen quite a number of people express the fantastical hope that Leo XIV will reinstate Bishop Joseph Strickland. John-Henry Westen, the editor-in-chief of Life Site News, even made this a litmus test of sorts. Whether the pope reinstates Strickland is “THE sign to watch out for,” Westen says, using his own capitals. That is to say, we’ll give the pope the benefit of the doubt—for now. But if he doesn’t send Strickland back to Tyler, Texas, we’ll know to descend like bloodhounds thirsty for the kill (FaithfulCatholics™️ that we are).
Now, Westen does find a number of things to admire about the new pope. He spells them out in his blog post. He liked that Leo wore traditional vestments, that he spoke in Latin, that he bowed his head when speaking the name of Jesus—“a practice followed by those devoted to the traditional Latin Mass.” Those things, said Westen, “are signs [that] made me hope.”
I liked all those things too, but I can tell you now that Pope Leo is not going to reinstate Strickland. Not no way, not no how.
But Alt! How do you know this?
Well, okay, I don’t. I could be surprised; I admit the chances of it happening are slightly north of the chances that Cardinal Burke would have been elected the first American pope. Just slightly. I imagine—I’m speculating here, but I imagine that Westen knows this too. I’d be surprised if he entertains any serious hope that Bishop Strickland will one day be back in charge of the good faithful Catholic souls of Tyler, Texas. My thought is that this litmus test for Leo is nothing other than Traditionalists creating a rationale for backbiting and disobedience in advance. They know he won’t reinstate Strickland; and when he don’t, they’ll pounce.
Maybe I’m overly suspicious; I’ve had twelve years of reading these people to become that way.
But here is a very partial list (because life is short) of the reasons why Pope Francis removed Strickland as bishop of Tyler, and why (short of public repentance) he will never be reinstated. Strickland suffered (indeed he still does) from a very acute case of Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome.
On July 8, 2022, Strickland posted to Twitter a video that described Pope Francis as a “diabolically disordered clown.” The video, shared by Strickland, also claimed that Francis was trying to “destroy” the Church, that he had “lost teaching authority,” and that his entire papacy was a “new gospel.” [Source.]
In May 2023, Strickland accused the pope of having “a program of undermining the Deposit of Faith.” [Source.]
In June 2023, the Vatican launched a formal Apostolic Visitation of Strickland’s diocese, which may have had to do with mismanagement of finances, since two finance officers were removed before their terms had expired. [Source.]
In September 2023, the Dicastery for Bishops—led at the time by Cardinal Robert Prevost (now Pope Leo XIV)—presented Pope Francis with a recommendation that Strickland be asked to resign. [Source.]
In October 2023, Strickland refused to resign, on the rationale that it would be “abandoning his flock.” [Source.]
On October 31, 2023, Strickland attended a Rome Life Forum hosted by—who else?—Life Site News. In that Forum, he read a letter accusing the pope of “sitting on a chair that is not his.” The letter described Pope Francis as a “usurper” and “an expert at producing cowards.” Strickland further claimed that Francis was promoting “an attack on the sacred.” [Source.]
Finally on November 11, 2023, Pope Francis removed Strickland as bishop of Tyler, Texas. Afterward he said he would pray that Pope Francis be “converted.” [Source.]
Strickland has maintained close ideological associations with Fr. James Altman (removed from ministry by his bishop) and former apostolic nuncio Carlo Maria Viganò (whom Pope Francis excommunicated for schism).
Given all these facts—which are far from exhaustive—Westen’s description of Strickland as having been persecuted by Francis is, to put it gently, extravagant. I would be astonied if Leo XIV, the very man who (as head of the Dicastery for Bishops) carried out the removal of Strickland, would turn around and reinstate him.
Westen floats the idea that perhaps the pope—Cardinal Prevost at the time—was only being obedient to the wishes of Pope Francis; perhaps he did not agree with them personally, but did not want to be removed from his own position. Personally this sounds like wishful thinking on Westen’s part.
Westen describes Strickland as one of the holiest of bishops, partly on the basis of Strickland spending three hours in Adoration every day. But that’s a show of holiness without true holiness. Jesus called it being a whited sepulchre (Matt. 23:27). Pope Pius X—beloved by Traditionalists like Westen—vehemently disputed that definition of holiness. Here is what Pius X said in Vi Ringrazio:
[W]hen we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.1
Whoever is holy cannot dissent from the pope.
It doesn’t matter if Strickland was spending twenty hours a day in Adoration. Whoever is holy cannot dissent from the pope.
A final indication I have that Pope Leo is not going to be reinstating Strickland any time soon—certainly not without repentance on Strickland’s part—is his remarks to the cardinals of of the Church before his first homily on Friday. He spoke to them of the necessity of unity, and he said: “I know I can rely on each and every one of you to walk with me.”
I suspect there was a subtext in that, given how many in the Church, including ordained priests and bishops, did not walk with Leo’s predecessor Pope Francis. The pope is, after all, the visible sign of unity in the Church—that is why lack of unity with the pope is canonically called schism. I just can’t imagine that Pope Leo would emphasize this, only to turn around and reinstate a bishop—a bishop he himself removed—who engaged in such flagrant public backbiting against the former pope.
But John-Henry Westen says give it three to six months. Then we’ll know.
Yes we will.
Italian original: “Perciò quando si ama il Papa, non si fanno discussioni intorno a quello che Egli dispone od esige, o fin dove debba giungere l'obbedienza, ed in quali cose si debba obbedire; quando si ama il Papa, non si dice che non ha parlato abbastanza chiaro, quasi che Egli fosse obbligato di ripetere all'orecchio d'ognuno quella volontà chiaramente espressa tante volte non solo a voce, ma con lettere ed altri pubblici documenti; non si mettono in dubbio i suoi ordini, adducendo il facile pretesto di chi non vuole ubbidire, che non è il Papa che comanda, ma quelli che lo circondano; non si limita il campo in cui Egli possa e debba esercitare la sua autorità; non si antepone alla autorità del Papa quella di altre persone per quanto dotte che dissentano dal Papa, le quali se sono dotte non sono sante, perchè chi è santo non può dissentire dal Papa.”