The headline is the second paragraph of a Seattle Times report which continues:
The conservative website LifeSiteNews, which said it interviewed Strickland on Saturday, quoted him as saying one of the reasons given for his ouster was his refusal to implement Francis’ 2021 restrictions on celebrating the old Latin Mass.
Francis’ crackdown on the old liturgy has become a rallying cry for traditionalist Catholics opposed to the pontiff’s progressive bent. Strickland told LifeSite he refused to implement the restrictions “because I can’t starve out part of my flock.”
He said he stood by his decision, would do it again and “I feel very much at peace in the Lord and the truth that he died for.”
His firing sparked an immediate outcry among some conservatives and traditionalists who had held up Strickland as a leading point of Catholic reference to counter Francis’ progressive reforms. [...]
The two Vatican investigators sent into investigate Strickland — Bishop Dennis Sullivan of Camden, N.J., and the retired bishop of Tucson, Ariz., Bishop Emeritus Gerald Kicanas — “conducted an exhaustive inquiry into all aspects of the governance and leadership of the diocese,” said the head of the church in Texas, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo.
After their investigation, a recommendation was made to Francis that “the continuation in office of Bishop Strickland was not feasible,” DiNardo said in a statement Saturday.
The Vatican asked Strickland to resign Thursday, but he declined, prompting Francis to remove him from office two days later, DiNardo’s statement said.
[...] Francis has not been shy about his concerns about the right wing in the U.S. Catholic hierarchy, which has been split between progressives and conservatives who long found support in the doctrinaire papacies of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, particularly on issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.
In comments to Portuguese Jesuits in August, Francis blasted the “backwardness” of these conservative bishops, saying they had replaced faith with ideology and that a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine allows for change over time.
[...] Most recently, Strickland had criticized Francis’ monthlong closed-door debate on making the church more welcoming and responsive to the needs of Catholics today. The meeting debated a host of previously taboo issues, including women in governance roles and welcoming LGBTQ+ Catholics, but in the end, its final document didn’t veer from established doctrine.
Ahead of the meeting, Strickland said it was a “travesty” that such things were even on the table for discussion.
”Regrettably, it may be that some will label as schismatics those who disagree with the changes being proposed,” Strickland wrote in a public letter in August. “Instead, those who would propose changes to that which cannot be changed seek to commandeer Christ’s Church, and they are indeed the true schismatics.”
" , , , that which cannot be changed?" The tail in this instance does not wag the dog.
What are Popes for, but to run the church? Somebody at some point said something using the word "infallibility," but what do I know, outside the Roman Church looking in?
From the outside, cleaning house does not look too bad. Opinions can differ.
However, Mass in Latin, Mass in local national langues, who cares? It's the Church, holding its service, same Church as used Latin, now people can understand the words. Getting rid of bishops is a part of being Pope, and Francis does his job.
Going the other ways, Hail Mary can be required to be in Latin while lapping the beads. Nobody is now suggesting that.
The Church perseveres, and is united in not wanting to pay real estate taxes. Would Francis fire a bishop who'd suggest they should? None have. So we don't know.
Francis is okay.