Addressing Concerns About Statements Regarding the Conclave

The points that John Paul Meenan has made in Catholic Insight in the article “Caveat LifeSite: Incipient Schisms,” are definitely worthy of consideration as, although bishops or theologians may have opinions about a Pope’s legitimacy, it is true that it is not their role to determine it definitively. The Church as a whole – especially the College of Cardinals and the bishops in communion with the Pope – would be the proper authority to judge such matters. However, by my endorsement of the mentioned article and the statements I have made, I am simply echoing traditional Catholic teaching that a heretic cannot be a valid pope, a position that has been discussed by theologians for centuries. Rather than being schismatic, I am in actuality defending the faith and fulfilling my duty as a successor of the apostles.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly” (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 33, a. 4, ad 2). Similarly, St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, taught that “a manifest heretic is automatically deposed from all ecclesiastical offices, including that of the papacy.” These are not new ideas but part of the Church’s theological tradition.

In view of the grave crisis in the Church in which we now find ourselves, I would ask Mr. Meenan at what point he thinks the bishops SHOULD speak out - after we find ourselves in the situation of which Archbishop Fulton Sheen spoke when he said that a counter-church would be set up “which will be the ape of the Church” with “all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content”?

Silence in the face of grave error is a sin. Pope St. Felix III said, “Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it.” And St. Catherine of Siena, a Doctor of the Church, famously exhorted Pope Gregory XI to be courageous: “Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues! I see that the world is rotten because of silence.”

Due to the nature of today’s crisis, bishops have a grave duty to warn the faithful. Many Catholics are confused, scandalized, and led astray. A bishop who speaks out, even at personal risk, is not being schismatic – but rather he is doing what countless saints and Church Fathers did before him. The real danger is in bishops who remain silent while souls are lost.

For years now, most bishops and cardinals have been completely silent as the Deposit of Faith has been attacked over and over, and in many cases, totally pushed aside. This papacy has made it clear that silence is required, and that no questions are allowed, and in fact if they are asked, none will be answered – at least not definitively.

For an example of this, I point to the responses of Pope Francis to the two sets of dubia he received from cardinals. The first dubium, in 2016, regarding Amoris Laetitia asked whether Amoris Laetitia allowed Holy Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics without annulments. Pope Francis did not give any direct response to this dubium, although his silence was seen by some as an implicit answer. The second dubium in 2023 was regarding doctrinal clarity on several topics including the possibility of blessing same-sex unions, whether divine revelation can change over time, and whether synodality can alter Church doctrine. Pope Francis responded, but not in the traditional “yes” or “no” format – but rather in an open-ended way which seemed to avoid clear doctrinal affirmations. And this has indeed become the norm in this papacy.

It seems that silence is not only the response of this papacy but also the response demanded of every priest, bishop, and cardinal who would seek to clearly and charitably defend the Deposit of Faith when ambiguities are brought forth from Rome. If this admonition to be silent is not heeded, in fact, then my own removal as Bishop of Tyler is a good example of what will happen – often with no reason given. But we must acknowledge that truth cannot change, and the Deposit of Faith is Truth. An attack on the Deposit of Faith is an attack on Christ Himself – He who is Truth Incarnate. And so the Deposit of Faith must be defended at all costs, regardless of where – or from whom – the attacks originate. “Then Jesus said to his disciples: ‘If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.’” (Matthew 16:24-25).

It seems we are now in a time in which silence is demanded, and it is indeed silence that is threatening the Church. Throughout history saints, theologians, and even Church documents have warned against false prudence – remaining silent when truth must be defended.

The idea that a papacy – or any Church leadership – would demand silence of those who seek to defend the perennial truths of the faith is troubling, especially when doctrinal or moral issues are at stake. When a crisis is present, silence is not neutrality – it often enables the very errors that threaten the faith. When bishops are afraid to defend doctrine, as has occurred in this papacy, truth is no longer safeguarded. Historically, the Church has always debated theological issues – sometimes fiercely – but this papacy seems to demand silence and submission without discussion which contradicts the Church’s tradition of reasoned discourse.

St. Paul confronted St. Peter when Peter’s actions caused confusion (cf. Galatians 2:11-14). And Canon Law states that the faithful, including bishops, “have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church.” (Can. 212.3).

Therefore, if a bishop believes the Church is facing a grave crisis – such as the possibility of a heretical pope or a manipulated conclave – then remaining silent, I believe, is negligent rather than obedient. In fact, I would argue that silence has led to:

• · The spread of doctrinal ambiguity on issues like the Eucharist, marriage, and human sexuality.

• · The rise of liturgical laxity among clergy and laity.

• · A weakening of Catholic identity, as some teachings are de-emphasized in the name of ecumenism or synodality.

While bishops should normally work within the hierarchical structure, there are times when public warning is necessary.

The concern about an invalid election is a theological discussion that has been debated for centuries. While the Church recognizes that a pope must be a Catholic and not a heretic, I agree that the process for dealing with such a situation is not left to private judgement. However, I feel it is important to recognize that we are now in a time of unparalleled danger in the Church and, therefore, a warning is needed.

In endorsing an article about the next conclave, and in setting forth the argument that if a heretical candidate is elected, then the election could be invalid, I was stating we could be facing an emergency situation in the Church, and I was making a public statement about what I believe could potentially happen in this situation. In response to Mr. Meenan’s concerns, I would state that my statements do not have a direct canonical consequence as I have not formally refused to recognize a pope chosen in a future conclave, and that questioning a pope’s legitimacy is different from refusing submission to a validly elected pope. The Church has always recognized that we must have the freedom to openly discuss matters – even difficult ones – if we are to come to a deeper and more thorough understanding of theological and doctrinal issues (e.g., Ecumenical Councils, writings of saints, etc.).

I have felt it important to make these comments because I feel a moral obligation to raise concerns prior to the next conclave so that the cardinals might consider these issues and address them with the seriousness and gravity due to such important matters. My intention was and is not to declare myself the final judge of a future pope’s legitimacy, but rather to ensure:

• · The cardinals are reminded of their grave responsibility – A conclave is not just a political process, but a sacred duty to elect a pope who will faithfully guard and transmit the Catholic faith. By speaking out, I hoped to prompt reflection among the cardinals about their duty to elect someone who is truly Catholic in belief and in practice.

• · A warning against possible problems in the election – Since there are valid concerns about heretical candidates and/or pressures from external influences, I felt it was necessary to call attention to this issue before any election happens. Some historical examples show that disputed papal elections have occurred throughout history, and the Church has had to deal with challenges to legitimacy before (e.g. the Western Schism).

• · To address what I fear will be confusion among the faithful – If a pope were elected under questionable circumstances, it could cause great division and scandal within the Church. By raising concerns now, I hope that if something questionable does happen, the Church will be better prepared to address it, rather than reacting in a state of crisis.

• · Not an act of schism, but a call for discernment – I am not acting in defiance of the Pope nor do I reject papal authority; I am merely issuing a warning. I am not claiming personal authority to declare a pope invalid and, therefore, I am not stepping outside Church teaching but rather expressing a theological concern.By stating that if the next conclave were to elect a pope who was a heretic or not truly Catholic, he would not be a valid pope, I have put forth an argument that is rooted in longstanding Catholic teaching that a manifest heretic cannot hold ecclesiastical office, including the papacy – a position affirmed by theologians and saints such as St. Robert Bellarmine. I felt, and continue to feel, I must speak out as so many of my fellow bishops today remain silent in the face of doctrinal confusion and moral corruption within the Church. Silence allows error to spread unchecked, harming the faithful. Saints like St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Siena, and Pope St. Felix III have warned that failing to oppose error is equivalent to approving it. By speaking up, I am fulfilling my duty as a shepherd to defend the truth, protect souls, and call the Church to a deeper fidelity in Christ – something that is desperately needed in our time.

I had hoped, by my statements, to appeal to the duty of all the bishops and cardinals, as successors of the Apostles, and to remind them that silence in the face of grave error is a betrayal of their office and a danger to souls. Therefore, I would like to once again make a plea to them:

Your Excellencies, where are your voices? The Church is in crisis! Souls are being led astray by doctrinal confusion, moral corruption, and open disregard for Sacred Tradition. As successors of the apostles, you have been given the sacred duty to guard the Deposit of Faith and shepherd the faithful. But too many of you remain silent while wolves ravage the flock.

I would like to remind you of the words of Pope St. Felix III: “Not to oppose error is to approve it. Not to defend truth is to suppress it.” The faithful are looking to you for clarity, for courage, and for the voice of the Good Shepherd. Will you speak up, or will you remain silent as the Church suffers?

Your silence will not be forgotten – but neither will your courage, should you choose to stand for Christ and His truth. Do not fear the loss of human approval, for we will one day stand before the judgment seat of God. Choose now whom you will serve.

Bishop Joseph E. Strickland

Bishop Emeritus