I've already documented the reasons why Bp. Strickland was relieved of his duties, on my blog. Here I want to provide more evidence (from his own utterances) for why it was entirely justified and necessary.
On his Twitter page, some three weeks before he was removed from his office, Bp. Stickland responded to a tweet by Dr. Thomas Carr O.P. (10-20-23), in which he stated: "Cardinal Burke is being asked to resign for saying this...but I can't see where he's wrong." And what did Cardinal Burke state? Here it is (cited by Dr. Carr): "If your bishop, or the supreme pastor of the Church, is affirming things not in accord with Sacred Tradition/the deposit of the faith, that can’t command your obedience. You can’t command obedience to do something against faith & morals."
What Bp. Strickland wrote in response (on 10-22-23) was this:
I stand with Cardinal Burke and pray for Pope Francis. Jesus Christ, His Bride the Catholic Church and the Petrine Office are essential to our salvation, they cannot be in opposition to each other. Jesus is the Way, the Truth & the Life. There is no other way to the Father.
This quite arguably is a rejection -- or very close to it -- of the doctrine of papal indefectibility, which was proclaimed at Vatican I (One) in 1870, at the same time it decreed papal infallibility as a de fide dogma. I can't go into the details concerning that, within my present purpose, but see my related articles:
Pope Francis Accusers Reject Magisterial Teaching on Popes (The pope’s teaching is indefectible and cannot be judged or “overruled” by any man: or even an ecumenical council) [7-23-20]
Dialogue #7 w 1P5 Columnist Timothy Flanders (Highlighting Papal Indefectibility, Pastor Aeternus from Vatican I in 1870, & the “Charitable Anathema”) [12-1-20]
Pastor Aeternus (1870): Can a Pope Ever Make Heresy Binding? (Dr. Robert Fastiggi and Ron Conte; edited by Dave Armstrong, in Response to Timothy Flanders) [12-1-20]
Papal Indefectibility: Dr. Fastiggi vs. Fr. Z [3-11-21]
What is insidious about a tragically misguided post like this (one of many such) is the amount of attention it gets: as of this writing, 182,000 views, 2,900 "likes," and 621 retweets. Bp. Strickland will stand accountable before God for every lie that he utters against Pope Francis. He would do well to heed what St. James wrote:
James 3:1, 5-6 (RSV) Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness. . . . the tongue is a little member and boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the cycle of nature, and set on fire by hell.
In a tweet on October 13th, Bp. Strickland implies that what is going on in the Catholic Church is not a legitimate development of doctrine (per St. Vincent of Lerins), but rather, a condemned "evolution of dogma," in writing:
St Vincent of Lerins, “Certainly, there is to be development…But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.”
This again is essentially a denial of the indefectibility of the Church and her head, the Holy Father. Bp. Strickland seems to believe that we Catholics are no different than the Anglicans, who follow every wind of the current zeitgeist, no matter how foul. Bp. Strickland has sadly lost faith in the Holy Spirit's protection of His Church. In another tweet on the same day, Bp. Strickland commends St. Vincent's writings on development (the initial basis of St. Cardinal Newman's theory of development) by writing, "I encourage all Catholics to study this timely and important message regarding development of doctrine." He thinks it's "timely," of course, because obviously he believes it's being violated -- or soon to be -- in today's Church.
On October 7th, Bp. Strickland supported in a tweet false and defamatory statements by Cardinals Burke and Müller, documented in an article by Raymond Wolfe, reprinted at the reactionary Life Site venue. Here are some sad highlights of their pathetic accusations:
Responding to Pope Francis’ apparent assent to homosexual “blessings,” Cardinal Burke stressed, “You cannot bless sinful acts.”
“You cannot bless a relationship which, in itself, is involved with intrinsically evil acts, and therefore, it’s not possible to bless these unions in any way,” he told Arroyo. . . .
Speaking with Arroyo, Müller, the former prefect of the DDF, slammed Monday’s document as not only violating previous magisterial teaching but also “the Word of God.”
“These declarations, in this sense, interpretations, are not only against the documents of the former popes and the councils but are going directly against the Word of God,” he charged.
“It’s very clear in the Old Testament, the Commandments, and the New Testament” that sexual activity outside of marriage “is a mortal sin,” he said. “Nobody can change it. It is the Word of God.”
“The Second Vatican Council,” the cardinal pointed out, “said the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God but is under the Word of God.”
“The pope and nobody in the Church has the authority to relativize the Commandments of God.”
These are lies and falsehoods, and canonist Dawn Eden Goldstein explains how and why they are, in her article, "Blessings undisguised: Debunking disinfo on Francis and gay unions" (Where Peter Is, 10-8-23). It's been a persistent lie since the beginning of Pope Francis' pontificate, that he is supposedly "soft on homosexuality." I've shown many times that he is not. See, for example:
Lawler vs. Pope Francis #2: Homosexuality & “Judging” [1-2-18]
Pope Francis, Same-Sex Unions, & Chicken Little Mass Hysteria [10-22-20]
“Gay Unions”: Leftist & Reactionary Catholics vs. Pope & CDF [3-23-21]
Pope Francis vs. Same-Sex “Marriage”: The Record [3-25-21]
These are but three examples of Bp. Strickland's alarming errors that are leading his flock and followers astray. I found them in just a few minutes of browsing his Twitter / X page. Heaven knows what other examples of false teaching might be found therein. I may do more searching for that myself, if people keep asserting that there is "no" reason whatsoever for his removal.