Papal Critics and Papal Authority
Plus the U.S. Bishops on Democracy, and the German Synodal Way
Last month, I wrote about Pope Francis’s removal of Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas for his outspoken remarks accusing Pope Francis of undermining the deposit of faith and, reportedly, for issues of governance in the Diocese of Tyler. I explained that theologians might find Strickland’s removal noteworthy for two reasons. First, Strickland was among the most outspoken of a small group of bishops and cardinals who have challenged Francis’s teachings and initiatives—including his teaching on communion for the divorced and remarried in Amoris Laetitia, his more inclusive outreach to LGBTQ persons, the restriction of offering the Traditional Latin Mass with Traditionis Custodes, and the synodal process, among others—and Strickland’s removal represents turning point regarding the resistance against Francis. Second, the removal raises important ecclesiological questions about the relationship between the pope and the bishops. A bishop is not a “branch manager” of the Vatican and acts on his own authority in his diocese, but a bishop is also called to act in communion with the pope and his fellow bishops, and likewise “the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church” (Lumen Gentium, 22), meaning the pope does ultimately have the authority to remove a bishop.
Last Wednesday, in my post for paid subscribers, I highlighted a 1967 interview with Yves Congar, O.P., one of the great theologians of the Second Vatican Council, that was recently re-published by America. In that interview, Congar is asked about precisely this question of the relationship between the pope and bishops (although not the question of whether, and under what circumstances, the pope can remove a bishop!). In Lumen Gentium, the council had balanced the First Vatican Council’s one-sided emphasis on the authority of the pope with its treatment of the collegiality of bishops and the pope’s role as head of the college of bishops. Even so, Lumen Gentium left open many questions on how exactly the relationship between pope and bishops should be understood, and in the interview, Congar considers the perspectives of other theologians, including Karl Rahner, S.J. while also offering his own thoughts on the issue. I won’t quote the whole thing, but in the passage most relevant to the contemporary contretemps over Strickland’s removal, Congar states:
The supreme power exists in both the Pope and the college of bishops, but in different ways. The Pope possesses real episcopal power over the whole Church (this is clear from Vatican I), not to administer the ordinary affairs of the dioceses but to intervene only in order that the unity of the Church may be preserved.
Interestingly, when making the point that although there is no power in the Church above the pope, the pope is nevertheless bound by the faith of the Church, Congar raises the possibility of a heretical pope:
Surely one cannot eliminate from ecclesiology the unanimously recognized theme of the possibility of a heretical or schismatic Pope. It might appear to be an unreal hypothesis, but it is a theme that is necessary in order to work out properly the position of the Pope in the over-all view of ecclesiology.
Speaking of accusations of papal heresy, in recent remarks, Cardinal Raymond Burke, another of the leading ecclesiastical critics of Pope Francis, tried to make clear that, through actions like the recent publication of a dubia letter, his intention has never been to attack the pope or his agenda, but rather to seek clarity regarding the Church’s perennial doctrines. The cardinal’s remarks, however, came at a conference in Rome on “the synodal Babel,” and during which Burke questioned the validity of the recent Synod, a key element of Francis’s agenda.
Soon after, as the Associated Press reported, Pope Francis revoked Cardinal Burke’s right to a salary and subsidized apartment in Rome because the cardinal is a source of disunity in the Church. As papal biographer Austen Ivereigh notes, the immediate cause for Francis’s action was not only the above-mentioned conference, but the publication of the tract The Synodal Process is a Pandora’s Box: 100 Questions & Answers by José Antonio Ureta and Julio Loredo de Izcue, both of whom are associated with Tradition, Family, and Property, a Brazilian reactionary movement, and with a foreword by Cardinal Burke. As part of a campaign to undermine the Synod, the book was published in late August and sent unsolicited to priests, diocesan offices, Synod delegates, and Curia officials.
As Thomas Reese, S.J. explains, the pope’s authority to revoke the privileges of a cardinal is far less theologically controversial than the question of removing a bishop. At The Pillar, however, JD Flynn argues that the decision may prove unpopular with other cardinals as a matter of custom:
[W]hether Burke speaks out or not, cardinals will be talking.
And I think even some very moderate, institutionalist cardinals — those who find Burke’s outspokenness distasteful — will regard this papal decision as beyond the pale.
The very institutionalism which makes them uncomfortable with Burke will likely leave them to conclude of Francis’ move that things just aren’t done this way in the Church.
I suspect the move will be seen by curial cardinals, especially, as a bridge too far — that popes should not be in the business of arbitrarily exercising their unfettered power to punish a critic.
I have no idea what cardinals will think of Francis’s move, but contra Flynn, the decision was hardly arbitrary. With the publication of the anti-Synod tract, Burke’s participation in the “synodal Babel” conference the day before the Synod’s opening, and the publication of the dubia letter the day before that, it’s clear that Burke is engaged in a concerted effort to undermine Francis’s leadership and teaching.
One noteworthy characteristic of the more radical critics of Pope Francis like Strickland and Burke, or at least their allies, is the creation of “alternative facts” to buttress a narrative of Francis as the persecutor of faithful Catholics trying to preserve the Tradition. Of course, former papal nuncio to the U.S. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who gained prominence for a 2018 letter accusing Pope Francis of covering up the sexual abuse of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, has since then woven mad conspiracies about the origins of COVID-19, the development of the COVID vaccine, and the war in Ukraine, and has likewise denounced the “errors” of Vatican II. But I am thinking of more subtle twisting of the facts.
Most notably, back in May, Catholic radio and podcast host Terry Barber claimed that, at the 2021 gathering of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, current nuncio Cardinal Christophe Pierre “wagged his finger” at Strickland and told him, “Bishop Strickland, we’re watching you. Stop talking about the deposit of faith. There is no deposit of faith.” Although there was undoubtedly a confrontation between Pierre and Strickland at the USCCB meeting, Barber’s account should seem implausible to anyone who isn’t already convinced that Pope Francis is on a mission of “undermining the Deposit of Faith,” as Strickland himself tweeted in May of this year. As Mike Lewis has shown, Cardinal Pierre has no compunctions regarding talking about the deposit of faith. And, of course, Barber was not present to hear the conversation.
After Strickland’s removal, Barber revealed that it was Strickland himself who had told him about the conversation. When asked about the episode in an interview on EWTN, however, Strickland equivocated, stating that Pierre had not denied the existence of the deposit of faith, but had asked him to stop emphasizing it. He went on, however, saying, “He didn’t use those words, but that’s what I heard.” Of course, for a self-proclaimed defender of the deposit of faith against its perceived enemies, any criticism could be heard as an attack on the deposit of faith itself or an attempt to stop him from talking about it, no matter what was actually said.
More recently, the web site LifeSite reported, based on an anonymous source, that Strickland had been “barred” from celebrating Mass in the Diocese of Tyler, presumably by Bishop Joe Vasquez of Austin, the current Apostolic Administrator of Tyler appointed by Pope Francis. The Pillar soon after reported that this is not true; Vasquez had asked Strickland to limit his public appearances in the diocese to prevent unnecessary dissension and ease the transition to new leadership. Although, according to one source, Strickland had been “encouraged” to refrain from offering public Masses, he was by no means barred from doing so. Interestingly enough, Strickland himself says that Vasquez suggested to him “it might be a good idea for me to leave the diocese.” I don’t know if that’s true, although leaving the diocese would certainly be one way of limiting public appearances.
Regarding Cardinal Burke, the Italian traditionalist news site La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, which first broke the news of Pope Francis revoking Cardinal Burke’s salary and residential stipend, in that same article cited an anonymous source as claiming that, at a meeting of the heads of the Vatican dicasteries on November 20, Pope Francis had told them, “Cardinal Burke is my enemy, so I am taking away his apartment and stipend.” Again, the alleged quotation should sound implausible. As Ivereigh points out, both AP reporter Nicole Winfield, and veteran Vatican reporter Philip Pullella, writing for Reuters, cited participants at the November 20 meeting who claimed that Francis stated the reason for his action was not personal enmity, but that Burke is promoting “disunity.” According to Ivereigh, Francis himself denied referring to Burke as “my enemy.” Indeed, Ivereigh writes:
Anyone who knows or works with the pope knows how bizarrely untrue this is, yet it is a fiction promoted with great vigor by media and websites supportive of Cardinal Burke. It is a fiction meant to perpetuate their fantasy that they are innocent victims being punished merely for defending the Church’s unchanging tradition against a modernist usurper.
As with Strickland, however, this case may not be an outright lie, but rather another instance of hearing what one is predisposed to hear. Regardless, it’s ironic that self-proclaimed defenders of the Truth should so often resort to playing fast and loose with the facts.
Of Interest…
At Commonweal, Peter Steinfels calls on the U.S. bishops to offer a defense of democracy and democratic institutions, noting its absence from their voting guide, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. Steinfels echoes my own argument, pointing out that the current version of Forming Consciences was written in a drastically different political environment and is woefully inadequate in an era that has seen a violent attempt to overthrow the presidential election, false accusations of widespread voter fraud, and authoritarian threats of retribution against political enemies. Whereas I focused on the limitations of the current document, particularly its focus on the purity of the individual conscience, Steinfels argues that the bishops may hesitate to take a stand in favor of democracy because it will seem partisan. As I tried to show, however, I think a defense of democratic institutions could be mounted that is nonpartisan but that nevertheless communicates the danger of a politician like Donald Trump by emphasizing, for example, campaign finance reform, the need for checks and balances in the democratic process, and fostering a democratic culture in our communities between elections, all of which could garner bipartisan support.
In my reports on the synodal process in Europe and on prominent Synod participants from Europe, I noted how the German Synodal Way (or Synodal Path) has divided the Church in Europe. The Synodal Way was a series of conferences held by the German bishops and lay leaders from 2019 through 2023 that made a number of controversial recommendations, including the revision of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality in the Catechism, approval for the blessing of same-sex unions, and a reexamination of the ordination of women. In February of 2022, Stanisław Gadecki, the Archbishop of Poznań and president of the Polish episcopal conference, wrote a letter criticizing the German Synodal Way. George Bätzing, the chair of Germany’s bishops’ conference, wrote a letter in response the following month. At The Pillar, Luke Coppen reports that after the conclusion of this year’s Synod in October, a letter from Gadecki to Pope Francis was published. The letter, written on October 9 as the Synod was unfolding, raises familiar criticisms of the German Synodal Way and expresses concern that the former would influence the Synod on Synodality. In November, Bätzing wrote a reply, not only defending the German Synodal Way, but criticizing Gadecki for writing the letter even as both he and Bätzing were participating together at the Synod in Rome. I’ve also written about how the Synodal Way recommended the creation of a Synodal Council with decision-making power for the dioceses of Germany, a proposal that has been criticized by Pope Francis and Vatican officials as canonically illegitimate but that nevertheless has been put in motion. Coppen also reports on the difficulties faced by the German synodal committee tasked with implementing the Synodal Way’s plan for a Synodal Council, including opposition from a handful of bishops and lack of funding from the bishops’ conference. Four bishops who opposed the Synodal Way have also refused to participate in the synodal committee, and in their absence, the committee changed its voting procedures such that the committee—which includes members appointed by the Central Committee of German Catholics lay association and delegates elected from each diocese—can pass resolutions with a majority vote of its members, without the support of the bishops. The German bishops have a real problem on their hands, now not only including their conflict with the Vatican over the legitimacy of the proposed Synodal Council, but also a committee that theoretically can make decisions about Church governance independently of the bishops.
I have a few more items that have built up over the past couple of weeks, but I will try to include them in next week’s free article!