Thank you, Larry, for advocating openly for the lucid empowerment of the power of bishops and their designation within each nation. I moved from ultramontanism to gallicanism after reading Bossuet, whose work is absolutely relevant. Having strong bishops is the constant tradition of the church. Bishops are instituted by divine right from Jesus Christ to be also partakers in the power of the keys. They ought to have, in their own diocese, similar powers to what the pope has on a universal level, given that due procedures of appeal and veto are retained.
This seems very cynical to me, the listening is meant as much for the talker as it is for the hearer. I accept that court politics have been with us from the beginning, but I don’t accept this as the privileged vehicle for diagnosis. If we cannot bear our brothers and sisters in their difficulty then how can we bear them (and ourselves) to heaven? Also, doubling down on authority has the temptation of removing oneself for culpability. Some of that is prudent, but taken to extreme formulations renders one inurred and indifferent to the realities you find yourself in. I think some of the consternation with Francis is about the fact that he is a challenging teacher spiritually, but why would one ultimately seek not being challenged out of sin and violence? Easier to pass out blame than repent.
But Francis is *not* challenging anyone in the synodality project! 10:12 onward. He challenges people in other settings, but this is his main project, and it is lifeless and mind numbing. The years spent on this and not on matters that actually impact laity, are a missed opportunity. This is why a “cynical” reaction occurs. Having seen the colossal waste of time in corporate processes of a similar nature, we can’t unsee it, and so we react cynically. That is unfortunate. A more constructive reaction should follow, but it will not involve a reassessment or rehabilitation of the current synodal process.
