UPDATED – MUST WATCH: Arroyo with removed @BishopMDHolley and SUPERB #Synod2018 analysis


It seems that Bp. Holley wasn’t the only thing removed. The video I posted earlier was removed. However, the different segments of the show were reposted on Youtube.

Originally Published on: Nov 1, 2018


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in The Drill and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. tzard says:

    While listening to the machinations of the synod, a thought came to mind. This sounds very communist to me. I’m not sure where it’s coming from, but to me it has hints of “Animal Farm” in it.

    All bishops are equal, but some are more equal than others.

  2. Kerry says:

    What a fine man.

    Dancing…? “…I will turn away my eyes that they may not see vanity”

  3. acardnal says:

    This puts a whole different light on the Bishop Holley forced resignation situation.

    I wish the Vatican would speak with the same clarity as Fr. Gerald Murray.

  4. Bellarmino Vianney says:

    Bishop Holley’s case is sad. Like he mentioned, his reputation is gravely harmed. He was not given due process and it sounds like he was falsely accused – or at least falsely and unjustly “judged” to be guilty of something that he did not do or something that was not actually immoral or canonically illegal.

    What is noteworthy is that due process is often not given to people who are clearly innocent, while people who are clearly guilty are covered up for and promoted for many many years.

    Pro-“LGBT” entities act that way – whether that pro-“LGBT” entity is “within” the Church, within law enforcement, or within other spheres of influences. They do not act with honesty or integrity; they exist to defeat people they see as their enemies.

  5. FrAnt says:

    Bishop Holley was a warning to other bishops.

  6. arga says:

    I agree with Arroyo that there is more to this than meets the eye. But I was not at all persuaded by Bishop Holley’s very feeble and stammering defense. He seems to be hiding something too.

  7. SanSan says:

    Praying for Bishop Holley to receive justice. His warning to other Bishops is very clear…..you need to speak up or you may be next.

    So sad to see the Bishops and Cardinals dancing like that…..

  8. Gaetano says:

    Pour encourager les autres…

    Fr. Z's Gold Star Award

  9. TonyO says:

    Wait just a minute. From what the bishop recounts, there is no formal document that says “you are removed as ordinary of the diocese…” He had comments from the Nuncio indicating withes and expression of an intent by the pope, but neither wishes nor intent are ACTS OF GOVERNANCE in which the pope removes a bishop. It requires a written document which expresses the explicit determination to remove. (Can’t be done verbally).

    It also seems impossible that the event can happen without an express statement of a cause. So far as the bishop recounts here, nothing is ever stated as any cause at all. While the pope, arguably, may have the power to remove a bishop for no cause at all, it is far from clear that such an act of blatant tyranny would be valid under the Church’s unalterable constitution. Bishops have certain authority and powers in virtue of their being the ordinary of a diocese, authority given them by God and not merely by the action of law: the bishop is not merely a delegate assigned by the pope. It would seem difficult to square with that divine grant of authority that it could be taken away from a bishop by the pope without even a claimed cause of action, merely the pope’s whim to remove it. Obviously such an act of tyranny is not according to canonical rules of due process (as mentioned), but the pope is not wholly bound by Canon Law as are others; he has the power to change it. (I would like to see canonists express an opinion about this question: if Canon Law says “in order to remove a bishop, the following rules are to be followed”, and the pope removes a bishop without following those rules, is the pope’s action (a) considered to be effectively “a change in canon law; or (b) a decision to make an exception around the law; or (c) simply not valid because the pope didn’t first make an explicit change or exception in the law as written? )

  10. iamlucky13 says:

    FYI, the video now shows as having been removed by the user.

  11. Pío Pío Pío says:

    I watched this whole video this morning, now it’s been removed by EWTN.

    One wonders whether Raymond Arroyo’s “certification” was just up for renewal…

  12. Father G says:

    Just checked The World Over Live YouTube channel and three videos have been deleted.

    My guess they were: 1) the full episode, 2) the interview with Bishop Holley, and 3) the segment with the papal posse.

    This doesn’t look good.

  13. Pío Pío Pío says:

    The interview with Bp. Holley has been mirrored at https://gloria.tv/video/py2aRUqrKe8m6DVhU2m2yhc8C.

    If anyone can find the full episode mirrored somewhere else, please post it here!

  14. Benedict Joseph says:

    Thank you for referencing the Gloria TV backup. I would have missed this and I was counting on viewing this afternoon having missed the World Over last evening. I wonder if it will be cut out of the repeating broadcast over the next week.
    Arroyo speaks the truth – due process is required, but also required is a thorough explanation from EWTN as to why this interview was withdrawn from the web.
    Secrecy is going to tank us. Will the episcopate ever wake up?

  15. Shonkin says:

    The interviewer floated the idea that the instigators may have been motivated by Bp. Holley’s bringing in Father Machado. Note that Fr. Machado is known as an exorcist. This rang a bell with me.
    Father Z. has said in the past that some of the worst sodomites in high places at the Vatican may be possessed. I wonder whether Bp. Holley saw demonic possession as a possibility in his diocese.
    Something is rotten somewhere.

  16. Shonkin says:

    About what arga said: I didn’t find Bishop Holley’s defense to be feeble and stammering. He was wise to remain calm and express his respect for the Papacy. The alternative would be to go Full Martin Luther, nail his 95 Theses to the cathedral door, and renounce the Papacy. That would be taking the low road and would do no good.

  17. s i says:

    The audio for the full episode can be found here:

    The link may not work directly; so go to player.fm and search for it.

  18. s i says:

    Here are some vids from the synod conclusion, including the dance party:

  19. rbbadger says:

    Someone has caused the video to disappear. I wonder if a certain archbishop emeritus had something to do with it. Fortunately, someone over at GloriaTV made a copy and posted it. You can see it here:


    This case is exceedingly troubling. What did the Holy Father know? Was he involved? To arbitrarily remove a bishop without due process worries me greatly. I have always held the law – both civil and canon – in the highest regard. If there is no culture of the rule of law, the rights of the accused, both those who are innocent and those who are guilty will suffer. The antinomianism of many associated with this pontificate concerns me deeply.

    Not only will the next pope have to be a man of prayer who knows his theology well, he will need to be a canonist to sort out all the messes which our present Holy Father, whom we as loyal Catholics are bound to love and pray for, has made.

  20. ex seaxe says:

    There is precedent for the removal of a bishop without a canonical justification, in the case of George Errington. He was dismissed by Blessed Pius IX in 1860 from the post of ‘Coadjutor of Westminster with right of succession’. However Errington at least had the opportunity of several private interviews with the pope before Pius IX issued the dismissal which he himself is said to have described as “colpo di stato di Dominiddio“.
    I understand that Canon Law now includes greater power to do this for the good governance of the church ; that is – to resolve interpersonal disputes, which was the problem with Errington and Wiseman.

  21. scotus says:

    Michael Vorris says official Catholic media cannot be trusted.
    He includes EWTN in that.
    This removal of videos by EWTN does appear to back him up.

  22. Charles E Flynn says:

    The video that was originally linked here of the Raymond Arroyo program from Thursday, November 1, 2018 had a URL that ended in “be”, which suggests it was hosted on a Website in Belgium. It was probably removed because the Website had no right to host someone else’s copyrighted video.

  23. jst5000 says:

    You tube video back up:
    Conspiracy over.

  24. (X)MCCLXIII says:

    Dear Charles,

    You Tube have the youtu.be domain. It’s just their little joke.

  25. Charles E Flynn says:


    Thank you. That is what happens when I look at things in a hurry on a Dell monitor at work.

  26. tho says:

    The British Admiralty did the same thing to Admiral Byng, the difference is that they physically hung him. Hence Voltaire’s wry comment, “pour encourager les autres”.

  27. jaykay says:

    tho: he was shot, I think, not hanged.

    But the difference is that it does seem to have encouraged the Royal Navy, in its commanders, to go on to become the predominant European naval power thenceforth. I say European, because the nascent US Navy certainly taught them a thing or two, but later. And even the French Navy, at least in its Royal days, had its moments.

  28. SanSan says:

    About what arga said: I didn’t find Bishop Holley’s defense to be feeble and stammering.

    I felt this too. I just can’t put my finger on it. There is more here than meets the eye (or ear).

    I can’t believe that these videos have been pulled…..something is going on for sure.

  29. Therese says:

    “I didn’t find Bishop Holley’s defense to be feeble and stammering.”

    It seemed rather to me that he was having some trouble finding the words necessary to be charitable. Someone has interfered in the performance of his duty as bishop, and he is deeply troubled by this. I am too.

  30. NBW says:

    I am also troubled by the whole Bishop Holley thing. There is a lot more going on than meets the eye. Holley has worked with/for Weurl and has worked under McCarrick. McCarrick ordained him. AND EWTN should not have pulled the video.

  31. NBW says:

    Blogger priest has info on the Bishop Holley removal that explains what happened. Holley was an orthodox priest and said the rosary daily. What a shame they removed him.

  32. Gab says:

    @NBW How disappointing to read that about Bp. Holley.

    When trying to figure out what happened, always follow the money. Always.

  33. Fr. Kelly says:

    The video is available on the ewtn site

  34. s i says:

    Conspiracy not over? The new upload is one minute shorter than the original.

  35. Emilio says:

    The full episode is also readily available through the Podcasts app on Apple’s iOS devices, or through iTunes. Just search for “The World Over”. I often miss the show when it first airs, so I heard the whole thing via Podcasts for the first time last night.

  36. tho says:

    jaykay: Thank you, you are right, my error.

  37. Dad of Six says:

    Father Hunwicke tells you what he thinks of the Bishop Holley situation this at:



  38. chantgirl says:

    NBW- The priest-blogger at your link mentioned something that set off an alarm for me:

    “The visitation from two archbishops and the papal sanction signals the end of episcopal sovereignty from the intrusive authority of bishops’ conferences. Indeed, the Pope as the bishop of Rome has traditionally respected the governance of other bishops within their (arch)dioceses as long as the faith and morals of the Church were promoted. This is no longer insured.”

    I do not know what backroom politics are being played out here, or what the real reason for Holley’s removal is, but the “solution” employed by Rome appears to bolster the power of the local bishop’s conference at the expense of the canonical rights of the bishop. Is this synodality in action? Is the way future trouble bishops will be handled- muscled out by the local bishops’ conference, under cover of synodality? The tyranny of the majority? Perhaps I am being paranoid and there is some good cause for Holley’s removal, but not providing a reason to the laity is also a cause of confusion and leads people to believe the worst.

    Dad of Six- Fr. Hunwicke pulls no punches and shows this papacy to be rather lawless in its’ administration.

  39. hwriggles4 says:

    I DVR The World Over sometimes and I did watch this Sunday night. I am glad Raymond Arroyo took the time to do this interview. Mr. Arroyo has not been afraid to ask questions (particularly during this pontificate) and I want to support him for sticking his neck out.

    Anyway, it sounds like Bishop Holley was doing his job, and he did mention that he was trying to observe the tribunal more closely (he had some concerns). Holley does feel he has been singled out, when other bishops are staying in place (Mr. Arroyo said that was “fishy”) when they have done a poor job. As far as transferring priests, Holley said there were several retirements, and he needed to staff parishes. Holley was also concerned about certain personality type issues too. The video might be in the archives now.

Comments are closed.