Catholic Standard And Catholic Review Repeat Our Sunday Visitor Inaccuracies Regarding Bishop Strickland

Both the Catholic Standard and Catholic Review use the same article from Our Sunday Visitor as they relay the news of Bishop Strickland's ouster.  OSV acknowledges that the Vatican has not yet given any official reason for Strickland's ouster, but it does point out a tweet that Strickland wrote last May stating that the Pope is "undermining the deposit of faith". 

All Strickland did was call a spade a spade.  Let's look back at some of the antics coming forth from this Vatican, shall we?

• A few weeks ago, he signed a document that allows gays and transgender perverts to be godparents at baptism
• While Strickland was stripped of his diocese, the German bishops who declared their intention to "bless" gay unions remain untouched.
• There is the colossal pachamama debacle during which this filthy idol was worshipped in the Vatican Garden, in the pope's presence.  Later that week, he placed a pachamama plant on the altar during Mass - a direct violation of GIRM and an act of idolatry.
• There is that insidious footnote in Amoris Laetitia, stating that de facto adulterers may receive Holy Communion while continuing their mortally sinful lifestyles
• He declared the death penalty to be inherently evil, directly contradicting 2000 year old Church teaching. 

This list could go on and on, but these will suffice to demonstrate that yes indeed, the pope is undermining the deposit of faith.

As for this October 31 address in question, LifeSiteNews diligently recorded the entire thing and published it for our reading.  Here it is.  Please read it.  Some reading the OSV article might get the erroneous impression that Strickland is calling the pope a "usurper".  In an interview with the Pillar Catholic, Strickland plainly states that such is not his view.  Rather, he was reading a letter from a friend to illustrate the confusion that this pope is undeniably causing.  He states that the pope is neglecting to clear up confusion by not answering the dubia and not issuing plain statements of belief.

Further on down the OSV article, we read that "the letter outright attacked Pope Francis' validity as the successor of St. Peter...Bishop Strickland said the letter's words were challenging but did not dispute the allegations."

I find great fault with the reporting of Our Sunday Visitor in this matter.  They utterly failed - whether by neglect or intent, I do not know - to take into account Strickland's subsequent exchange with the Pillar, during which Strickland acknowledges Francis's papacy.  OSV's sloppiness could lead the unsuspecting reader to believe that Strickland doubts the validity of Francis' papacy.  The OSV has a duty, in my opinion, to correct their reporting.  Moreover, The Catholic Standard and Catholic Review. have a duty to acknowledge their own sloppiness in their blind repetition of the OSV error without doing any "due diligence" verification themselves.

Here are more details about these matters from the Lepanto Institute.