That's a perfectly normal reaction and representative of our poor understanding of the Vatican's responsibility. The following article provides a better perspective.
Why Doesn't the Pope Do Something about "Bad" Bishops?
That said, however, this bishop might just as well erect a
sign. He has done nothing to reclaim the Catholics that have left the fold.
Hey NYer, I re-read that old thread.
To: NYer
“The gradualist approach may turn out to have been a mistake, but I don’t think so.” (a quote from the article)
The problem with the gradualist approach is that the longer you allow bad Bishops with their bad teaching (or lack of any teaching) to inflict themselves on a diocese the less the laity even know that something is wrong in their diocese. Is this guy saying that the areas with craptastic Bishops are just unlucky, and ultimately there is nothing the Church can do for years and years until the bad Bishop kicks it or retires?
Freegards
23 posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 3:53:58 PM by Ransomed
I’m still not convinced that the Church can do nothing about bad bishops and their bad teaching/lack of teaching for 30-40 years at a clip. It has never been easier for the Church to monitor bishops than it is today. You can only run from the fear of schism so long before you’re in one anyhow.
Do you think the Vatican really did all it could do?
Freegards, thanks for all the awesome pings!