Well, well, well. What do we have here? Check this goodie out, folks:
…What’s interesting here is Fr Blake’s analysis of exactly why this is so, which is one I have more than once argued myself: it’s the existence of the bishops’ conference as a bureaucratic entity (rather than as a spiritual body). It’s the bureaucratisation of our hierarchy — so that only the official episcopal spokesman in a particular area, as chairman of some board or other run from Eccleston Square, with its own lay secretary (probably an ex-priest or laicised nun), or on the other hand the archbishops speaking collectively (an extreme rarity) — may speak for the other bishops: this means that individual bishops have their own prophetic voice if not silenced then severely weakened.
As Fr Blake interestingly says: “A Curial Bishop once told me that a few Episcopal Conferences in the world give leadership but most frustrate it. In our case the bishops’ conference certainly frustrates the accountability of individual bishops to their presbyterates and their people, an accountability which was in the vision of Vatican II, in its strengthening of the bond between a bishop and his diocese.” Fr Blake goes on to quote the present Pope, who over two decades ago said: “The decisive new emphasis on the role of the bishops is in reality restrained or actually risks being smothered by the insertion of bishops into episcopal conferences that are ever more organised, often with burdensome bureaucratic structures. We must not forget that the episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function.” (The Ratzinger Report, 59-61)…(Source)
The rise of the National Conference of Bishops around the world and the demotion of the role of the individual bishop is right in line with the emasculation of men in general and the rise of the Socialist State. It’s all about the delegation of particular authority and responsibility to someone or some group who should not have it, and the unwillingness to muddy one’s hands with the ghastly business of upsetting other bishops. It’s all about mutual sensitivity and “respect” while the culture and society go to hell in a hand basket. Champagne with that social justice anyone?
The emasculated bishop shares the same basic problem that Adam had. He let someone else make a decision which was ultimately his to make. If you read the account of the Fall, Adam let Eve make the decision for him. If he had resisted like a man and accepted the protestation and confrontation with the Serpent and even Eve, the Fall would not have happened – at least not the way that it did. God assigned him as the gatekeeper, protector, and guardian of both Eden and his wife. But he refused to engage the Serpent, was silent, was passive, and went along to get along. And because of that cowardice, we all sin and die. We hear about all of the great sins of social injustice of our age by bishops, but few of them talk about the sin of cowardice. Why do you suppose that is?
Isn’t that, gentle reader, what is happening to our culture today?
No men. No balls. And no future. We’ve become a culture of emasculated dhimmis who’ve elected a girly man as President of the world for the second straight term.
In many cases, especially in education and the liturgy, it is more true than not that some feminist, New Age nun is having a huge influence on what gets done in these infernal committees which, in turn, is what we get fed to by the bishops who have become little more than altar boys of the Borg. That’s not exactly what Vatican II had in mind when it sought to strengthen legitimate collegiality among the episcopacy. Vatican II sought legitimate co-operation among the bishops, not a transfer of authority to a bureaucratic monster with poisonous tentacles.
And so, here we are again in the Garden. Same story, different actors. And same result too.
The Borg’s power must be challenged. Bishops must be made to realize that they should STOP allowing expectations of a phony, political unity to override their better judgement. In short, they must be willing to confront and challenge other bishops. They must overcome passivity and the sin of Adam, and accept the consequences of going it alone sometimes…just like Jesus did.
Remember Jesus? What did Jesus do? The exact opposite of what Adam did. He confronted sin. He confronted people. He confronted.