I saw this clip at open book earlier today, but didn’t get around to reading it till just now.
Amy linked to another guy, Fr Guy, who opined:
I ask what the point is of having a national conference which helps to clarify and implement directives from Rome when the member bishops feel free to ignore it whenever the (sic) darn well please?
When I first saw the headline this morning, I thought, finally: somebody asking the right question. I still think it’s the right question, but the wrong angle. So let me rephrase:
What’s the point of having the bishops meet, discuss, and give input on translations when the whole matter’s already been decided in Rome already?
We have a priest who believes that the purpose of a national conference is to jump when Rome says, “Frog.” Wouldn’t it be better in this ecclesiological angle to just have every parish pastor on the line directly to Rome? Send out directives. Let the pastors implement. Cut out two layers of bureaucracy. Easy, right?
There’s no wondering why bishops are having their identity crisis. The loyalists want them to be message boys, so you can probably extrapolate what the progressives would want to see.
Maybe someone with more ecclesiological elasticity can explain this one to me. Bishops, who are you, ’cause I really wanna know (to paraphrase Roger Daltrey).