.png)
Bishop Joseph Strickland is a well-known and well-loved prelate for many conservative Catholics.
Ordained for the Diocese of Dallas in 1985 and appointed Bishop of Tyler, Texas, by Pope Benedict XVI in 2012, he has in recent years become a vocal critic of certain Vatican policies which he believes go against “the truth of the Gospel.” He was removed as Bishop of Tyler in 2023 after a Vatican investigation concluded that “the continuation in office of Bishop Strickland was not feasible.”
In this exclusive interview, he discusses his initial perceptions of Pope Leo XIV’s pontificate, his fellow bishops’ response to his removal, and his reflections on the life of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the SSPX.
CH: Your removal as Bishop of Tyler in November 2023 followed an apostolic visitation and your public criticisms of Pope Francis. You have suggested it was due to speaking the “truth of the Gospel.” Could you elaborate on which specific truths you believe were at odds with Vatican leadership, and how you reconcile your outspokenness with the call for unity in the Church?
S: The truths I have spoken are not mine – they belong to the Gospel and to the Church’s constant teaching. I have defended the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, the truth of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the reality that only men can be ordained to the priesthood, and the absolute necessity of moral clarity on issues such as gender ideology and same-sex relationships. These are not political positions or personal opinions; they are the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church, rooted in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
If those truths put me at odds with Vatican leadership, it is not because the truths have changed – it is because, in recent years, there has been a willingness to blur them in the name of pastoral flexibility or cultural accommodation. My conscience will not allow me to remain silent when souls are being misled or confused.
As for unity, authentic unity in the Church is never built on silence in the face of error. True unity is found only in Christ, who is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Unity that ignores truth is merely uniformity – and that is not what Our Lord prayed for on the night before He died. He prayed, “Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth” (John 17:17). If we are united in Him, we must be united in the truth He revealed.
CH: Following the election of Pope Leo XIV in May 2025, you expressed hope that he would “faithfully uphold the Deposit of Faith.” What are your expectations for his papacy, and how do you believe he might address the tensions you experienced under Pope Francis?
S: When Pope Leo XIV was elected, I expressed the hope that he would faithfully uphold the Deposit of Faith. That hope was genuine – but it has already been tested and, sadly, diminished.
In these first months, the evidence is clear: he has retained Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith – a man whose record includes undermining moral doctrine and approving documents that confuse the faithful on issues such as same-sex blessings. He has appointed bishops who openly support the ordination of women, contrary to the Church’s constant teaching. He has also maintained restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass, depriving the faithful of a liturgy that formed countless saints.
These are not small matters. They represent a continuation of the same pattern we saw under Pope Francis – tolerating, or even promoting, voices that contradict the faith, while sidelining those who speak it plainly.
My own experience in the Diocese of Tyler under Pope Francis’ pontificate, including the visitation led by Cardinal Prevost, was shaped by that same climate of doctrinal ambiguity and punishment for those who resisted it. More important than my own circumstances, however, is the call we all share: to live and proclaim the truth of Christ in love, so that souls may be saved and God may be glorified.
I pray for Pope Leo every day, because the papacy is a sacred trust given by Christ Himself. But praying for the Pope does not mean remaining silent when the flock is being scattered. My expectation – and my plea – is that Pope Leo will break from this path, remove those who undermine the faith, restore clarity to Catholic teaching, and strengthen his brethren in the truth, as Our Lord commanded Peter in Luke 22:32: “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
The times demand it, and the souls of the faithful deserve nothing less.
CH: Cardinal Daniel DiNardo stated that the apostolic visitation in June 2023 examined “all aspects of the governance and leadership” of your diocese, concluding your continuation was “not feasible.” Were you provided with specific details about governance issues, and how do you respond to claims that administrative concerns, such as staff turnover or financial management, contributed to your removal?
S: No, I was not given any such details. As I have said, all of that is history, and I was not removed because of any mismanagement of the diocese. I was removed because I spoke the truth when it was not the popular thing to do. That, I believe, is the clear reality of the matter. There was no hidden problem and nothing complicated about it. The diocese was in good financial shape. Yes, we had some personnel issues in the past, but every diocese does.
The reality is that Cardinal DiNardo and the nuncios spoke to me more than once and said, “Stop emphasising the Deposit of Faith so much, and stop speaking in opposition to what is coming out of the Vatican.” As I have said, I could not do that. Ultimately, I am not important – what is important is the truth of the Gospel of Christ. That is what I want to talk about.
CH: You’ve emphasised that you could not resign voluntarily because you felt a duty to the flock entrusted to you by Pope Benedict XVI. Looking back, do you believe there was a path to dialogue with Pope Francis that could have preserved your role as bishop?
S: I do not believe there was a path to dialogue, because there were too many things being promoted that were contrary to the Deposit of Faith I had promised to guard. The reason I could not resign is that the bishop’s responsibility to teach and guard the flock is a very grave one. I believed that resigning would be abandoning my work as bishop.
The Pope is the supreme authority of the Church. I always tried to be respectful of the authority of the Petrine office. Pope Francis had the authority to remove me – in fact, he is above canon law in this regard. The letter I received, as an attachment to an email, stated simply that I was relieved of my duties as Bishop of Tyler. He had the authority to do that, just as he has the authority to appoint bishops. I respected that decision.
Some have argued whether the Pope truly has that authority, but as the supreme lawgiver of the Church, I accepted that he does. Nevertheless, under my own authority as Bishop of Tyler, I could not abandon the flock – and that is precisely what I felt I would have been doing if I had resigned.
CH: You have previously noted a perceived lack of fraternity from some fellow bishops, particularly during your apostolic visitation. Have your brother bishops reached out to you with charity and support since your removal in November 2023?
S: A very small number of bishops have reached out to me privately, but very few. In truth, I have not received much fraternal support. I am not welcome in the dioceses of Texas anymore, although a few bishops have been personally welcoming. The lack of support, I believe, was deliberate – I was being made an example of.
The message to other bishops was clear: if you speak openly about the truth of our faith in the face of what is coming from the Vatican – whether it is blessing same-sex unions, discussing the ordination of women, or other such controversies – you risk removal. The truth is not up for negotiation; it is not something we can edit at will. It is divinely revealed to us. Because I refused to go along with false messaging from the Vatican, I was removed.
Other bishops, understandably, feared the same treatment if they took a similar stand. Rome made it clear that they would be risking removal. I believe that is what it came down to.
CH: Pope Leo XIV has signalled continuity with Pope Francis’s priorities, such as outreach to the Global South and Church reform. As someone who publicly challenged aspects of Francis’s leadership, how do you plan to engage with Pope Leo XIV’s pontificate, particularly if he upholds policies you’ve critiqued, such as restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass?
S: If Pope Leo XIV chooses to uphold the same policies I have already spoken against – such as the restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass – then my course is simple: I will continue to proclaim the truth and defend what the Church has always handed down, regardless of the cost. Outreach to the Global South and authentic reform are good when they are rooted in the unchanging truths of the Catholic faith. But when those priorities are used to justify doctrinal compromise or the suppression of legitimate expressions of the faith, like the ancient liturgy, they become tools of division rather than unity.
My engagement with this pontificate will be the same as it was under Pope Francis: respectful toward the papal office, but unflinching in calling out error and defending the Deposit of Faith. The liturgy is not a museum piece – it is the living worship of the Church, and no pope has the authority to diminish the treasure that has sanctified countless souls for centuries.
I will pray for Pope Leo XIV daily, but prayer must be accompanied by action. As St. Paul told the Galatians, “When I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all …” (Galatians 2:14). If necessary, I will speak with that same clarity today. My mission is to guard the faith, strengthen the faithful, and ensure that Christ – not the spirit of the age – governs His Church.
CH: You’ve called for Catholics to remain steadfast in their love for Christ and Sacred Tradition under Pope Leo XIV. What specific guidance would you offer to clergy and laity who feel uncertain about the direction of the Church under his leadership, especially in light of your own experience of being removed?
S: My counsel to both clergy and laity is simple: keep your eyes fixed on Jesus Christ and the truth He has entrusted to His Church. No pope, bishop, or priest has the authority to change that truth. Sacred Tradition, the Sacraments, and the perennial Magisterium are not ours to edit – they are treasures we guard and hand on.
When the direction of Church leadership causes uncertainty, the first response must be deeper prayer, fidelity to the Catechism, and full participation in the sacramental life – especially the Holy Eucharist and Confession. Stay rooted in the Scriptures, in the Rosary, and in devotions that have nourished saints for centuries.
I have faced challenges in my own service as a bishop, but the details of my situation are far less important than the lesson it confirms: our faith must never rest on personalities or positions. It must be anchored in Christ. The Church has weathered storms before, and she will again. We are called, as St. Paul wrote, to “stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned” (2 Thessalonians 2:14). That is the sure path – in any pontificate, in any age.
I’m not interested in revisiting the details of my removal – that’s in the past. What matters is that I continue, as any bishop or Catholic should, to proclaim the truth of Christ and serve His Church with fidelity. This has never been about me; it’s about Christ.
CH: Pope Francis argued that the Traditional Latin Mass can be divisive and linked to rejecting Vatican II. How would you respond to this critique, and what role do you believe the Latin Mass should play in fostering unity within the Church under Pope Leo XIV’s leadership?
S: The Latin Mass is sometimes called the Mass of the Ages, and countless saints have reached sanctity through it, the same sanctity to which we are all called. So, to suggest it is somehow harmful to the faith or divisive, I completely disagree. I think all the evidence, even in the modern world, shows that many families are drawn to the Latin Mass.
I was ordained in what we now call the Novus Ordo, but when I was growing up, it was simply “the Mass.” I never heard all this controversy until after I became a bishop. To try to suppress the Latin Mass as if it were something outdated or bad is, in my view, contrary to the faith. The response of the faithful has made that very clear.
What I have always tried to emphasise is the presence of Christ in the Mass. On that basis alone, you did not have people in, say, 1900, when the Latin Mass was what was celebrated in the Church, doubting the Real Presence in such large numbers. The Mass is about bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Back then, you did not have Catholics claiming to be Catholic yet saying it was only a symbol. That sort of thinking developed in my lifetime.
I was born in 1958, and not long after, in the 1960s, came Vatican II and the changes to the Mass, which I believe diminished its sacred focus and the focus on Christ. Thankfully, the Mass remains valid, and bread and wine truly do become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. But there are countless examples of a loss of reverence that have followed the changes. I believe we need to re-emphasise Christ and His coming to us in His Real Presence, instituted at the Last Supper on Holy Thursday. That Mass of the Ages is still what sustains us. The Eucharistic face of Christ is the strength of the Catholic Church, and Vatican II reaffirmed that.
There is a lot of controversy about the Second Vatican Council. I believe it was a council of the Catholic Church, absolutely. But in the aftermath of the Council, not in the documents themselves, ambiguities were used in ways the Council Fathers never intended. If you read Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, it looks nothing like what we now know as the Novus Ordo. I have read commentaries and spoken to bishops who were there. They would not have recognised the Novus Ordo as something the Council called for. The document said to preserve the Latin language, to use the vernacular to some extent, but to keep Latin and Gregorian chant. It said nothing about the priest turning to face the people, or many other changes that came later. What we ended up with was, I believe, a distortion of what Vatican II actually said.
The Novus Ordo is the Mass I grew up with, and Christ truly comes to His altar in it. But it has significantly weakened the focus on Christ, shifting it more towards the community and the priest. The results of that are plain to see.
In the life of the Church since Vatican II, I do not so much blame the Council itself as what people did after it, things like Communion in the hand, which in the United States is only permitted by indult. It is not a universal practice, but it is another example of diminishing the sacred nature of the Mass, the supernatural reality that bread and wine become God Himself: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
When you diminish that focus, you put the Church in danger. And I think we have seen the results of that danger, of losing sight of what the Mass is about, and above all, Who the Mass is about: our Lord Jesus Christ.
CH: The Society of St. Pius X has been a point of contention, yet it attracts Catholics devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass and Traditional Doctrine. Given your support for the Latin Mass and your criticisms of certain Vatican policies, how do you view the SSPX’s role in preserving Catholic tradition, and what would you say to Catholics considering attending SSPX liturgies in response to restrictions like those in Tyler?
S: I certainly do not claim to be an expert on all the details of what happened with Archbishop Lefebvre and what is now called the SSPX, but I do believe that as an archbishop of the Church, and with those who joined him, he played a significant role in preserving the Latin Mass as something vital to the life of the Church. It is the ancient and sacred rite of celebrating the Eucharist, of Jesus Christ coming to us under the form of consecrated bread and wine.
Of course, we still have the Eucharist in the Novus Ordo, but as I mentioned earlier, the diminishing of faith in who the Mass is about is a critically important issue. In that light, I think Archbishop Lefebvre’s role in history is something we need to keep in perspective. You have probably read, as I have, that the Catholic Church, which has existed for two thousand years, tends to think in centuries rather than years or decades. We are now six or seven decades into this post-Vatican II period, and the Church is still wrestling with how to respond to the modern world.
The Mass is at the very centre of that struggle. Lex orandi, lex credendi – the law of prayer is the law of belief – and we are seeing that truth play out. Regarding Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, different popes, such as John Paul II, tried to enter into dialogue, and some progress was made, though questions remained. I cannot claim to know the full body of Archbishop Lefebvre’s work, but in standing firm for the Latin Mass and insisting it could not be abolished, I believe he served the Church in a way that will be recognised by history.
A hundred years from now, in 2125, the Church will still be here if the world is still here. Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against her. We believe that as Catholics because it is a divine mandate. The Church exists for the salvation of souls, and the Mass is central to that because it brings us Christ Himself to feed us, to strengthen us, and to call us to turn from sin.
I would say that Archbishop Lefebvre will be remembered as a faithful Catholic who stood for principles that were in danger of being lost, questioned, or discarded, the central one being the Latin Mass. In our time, with Traditionis Custodes, it is treated as though it were a poison that must be eliminated, which is a complete distortion of what the Mass is.
Liturgical reform had happened long before Vatican II. The Church is always in need of reform, not in the sense of changing the truth, but in purifying herself so as to be more closely aligned with Christ. That is what we do in our personal lives: we repent of sin, grow in holiness, and constantly seek to be renewed. The Church must do the same, turning away from worldliness and proclaiming the light of Christ.
So, to put it simply, I believe Archbishop Lefebvre will go down in Church history as having rendered a very important service. It was a painful choice for him personally, but he decided that he must hold fast to the Mass of the Ages, the Latin Mass, and not abandon it, no matter who told him otherwise.
CH: The Vatican’s Fiducia Supplicans allows priests to offer non-liturgical blessings to same-sex couples, emphasising pastoral care while reaffirming that such blessings do not approve their union or equate to marriage. Given your vocal opposition to perceived deviations from Church teaching, how do you view this declaration’s approach to balancing pastoral outreach with doctrinal fidelity, and what guidance would you offer to priests and laity navigating the confusion and division it has caused?
S: Well, I think there is a lot of confusion, but the answer is actually quite simple. A couple of years before the document Fiducia Supplicans came out – speaking in rather unclear terms about blessings that were not liturgical, not for couples, and so on – the Vatican had already made a straightforward statement: we cannot bless sin.
That is really as simple as it gets. When two men or two women present themselves as being in a sexual relationship, we cannot bless that relationship. Of course, the individuals can come for a blessing, especially if they are trying to return to living according to the truth the Church proclaims. Christ always welcomes the sinner – He did so many times in Scripture – but He always calls them to repentance.
This is what Fiducia Supplicans, and the practice of blessing two men in a sinful sexual relationship, fails to make clear. That is not love for them, nor is it genuine care for them. We cannot bless sin.
The Church needs to be absolutely clear on this in our time. Society outside the Church, which rejects Jesus Christ and much of Catholic moral teaching, will say “live and let live” or “love is love.” But that is not the truth of our Catholic faith, and we know that the truth sets us free. If we are truly loving and kind, we must warn people that sin can destroy them for eternity and condemn them to hell.
If love is what we are about – and it is – then we must tell the truth. I often use the analogy of drug addiction. Around the world, drugs are destroying lives. It is not loving to pretend that being addicted to drugs is fine if that is your choice, and to give someone a blessing without calling them to change their life. The same applies to those in a sinful relationship.
It is no different from a man and a woman who are not married but living together in fornication. If they came forward for a blessing, it would be just as wrong for a priest to bless them as it would be to bless two men or two women living in a sexual relationship.
The world desperately needs the clarity of truth that Christ has revealed, and it is a great tragedy of our time that even within the Church we are not being clear. What we must do is proclaim the truth – the supernatural truth revealed by God – because this is what the Church has been entrusted to teach. It is the truth that enables us to flourish and be freed from the bonds of sin.
That is why Christ died: to conquer sin and death. His death and resurrection have power when we repent and choose to live in Him. There are countless examples of people who were living in terrible sin, whose lives were being destroyed, but who heard the message of Christ, repented, and were transformed. Many saints lived this journey of conversion, and many people in our own day have turned from atheism or deep sin to embrace the truth of Jesus Christ.
He is the Lord of all, the Son of God – and there is only one Son of God, Jesus Christ.
