But the whopper is his idea of having different offices in different parts of the world.
A Church that claims to be global must globalize. That means that, like the United Nations, it must have major parts of its operations outside the headquarters, in places where communications, international transportation and a global ethos make for efficiency and a broader vision. New York, Brussels, Nairobi, Hong Kong, Jakarta, Rio de Janeiro, Moscow, London and many more places come to mind as places where Church offices could function and have better contact than they can have in Rome with the realities that Catholics and others throughout the world face.
Because the UN gets so much done. Right.
I can picture it: the UN-ization of the Roman Curia. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – were it to be necessary anymore – could be in, say, Jakarta. The Council for Interpretation of Legislative Texts could be in Nairobi, Divine Worship in Moscow, Oriental Churches in Rio, and Clergy in Hong Kong. That would make things so much better.
And there is:
Most, if not all, of what it claims as its scope of authority could and should be handled by regional, national and local bishops’ conferences and synods of leaders and laity. (Source)
Whenever someone talks about decentralizing the Church, immediate suspicion (yes, that’s such a baaaaaaad word these days) should be directed at such an individual. Remember, folks, the Curia is the government and the right arm of the Pope. When you cut off the right arm or mangle it, just how strong do you think the papacy will be?
We need a strong, reformed curia, not a watered-down version of Anglicanism. How’s milk toast ecclesiology working for them?