The Orthodox have that structure, and they bicker back and forth and have different rules depending on which patriarchy you would find yourself in.
Can't you just see this? It would make things much worse for catholics. One diocese would decide this, another that, which is already the case even worse than before.
There is so much instability right now. It would be a grand concession to the Orthodox, but it could throw catholicism around the world into total chaos.
The only thing that is holding the church together, for better or for worse, doctrinally is Rome, and only Rome has been able to have any affect on some of the liturgical abuses and little effect on some of the other problems as things stand now.
If all the bishops get together regularly and agree to the letter, I would be ok with it. That ain't likely to happen.
I wouldn't put it past some bishops to allow kool aid and dog biscuits.
I see your point. Seeing the USCCB as a model for a patriarchate strikes me a stupefyingly wrongheaded. (Not that that's what Benedetto would do: we have yet to see.)
On the other hand, for say 1200 years the West has conflated the roles of Pope and Patriarch of the West (historically almost inevitable at the time: the Age of Barbarian Invasions and all), but that led to a frankly ugly policy of in effect demanding that the churches of the East abandon/compromise all their holy traditions to become Latin/Western. This is spiritual oppression and a terrible injustice.
Think of India: a billion people. Think of China: a billion people. If there's ever an evangelizing wave sweeps over those two nations, is there a snowball's chance they could be "managed" from a central administration in Rome, let alone drawn into an essentially European religious culture?
SHOULD they be?
I dunno. An "English-speaking" Patriarchate sounds way too vulnerable to USCCBaloney; an Asian one sounds almost essential for global evangelization.
Obviously, it is very practical, given the first part of your next statement and the fact that we are liturgically and theologically stable.
"The Orthodox have that structure, and they bicker back and forth and have different rules depending on which patriarchy you would find yourself in."
I will be the last to deny that Orthodox are prone to bickering about things, but as our priest has said, we're so busy arguing over how many sitchera to sing at "Lord, I have cried..." at Vespers that we'll never get far enough down the list to get to gay marriage and women priests. I have spoken before of the "peer pressure" within Orthodoxy to keep the traditions of the Church: pressure of laity on clergy, pressure of clergy on bishops, bishops on each other, etc...
It really is true. For us, tradition is a very living thing, but the movement is always one of moving forward by continually returning to traditional roots.
"There is so much instability right now. It would be a grand concession to the Orthodox, but it could throw catholicism around the world into total chaos."
I'd be surprised if then Cardinal Ratzinger was viewing this as merely a concession to the Orthodox. He seems rather in his statements to indicate that he first and foremost thinks it would be healthy for the West itself.
I think that there is a lot of truth to the statement that it could lead to chaos right now, and AlbionGirl's comments on the condition of her diocese backs that up. My own observations of the RC dioceses in some of the places where I have lived are that things would really spin out of control with any kind of autonomy.
But that doesn't make the centralized, top-down structure of Roman Catholicism healthy. My own opinion is that it is this centralization that allowed the current rot. The lack of a sense on the part of the vast majority Roman Catholics that they personally were responsible for defending the faith, even against their own bishops and Popes, was devastating. I have often quoted this from then Cardinal Ratzinger, who seems to understand this:
After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West.
This is important from an Orthodox perspective, because the liturgical services of the Church are a primary means of shaping our faith and morals. Change the Liturgy, and one changes the faith -- at least eventually. In the RC church, the Liturgy has not played this role to such an extensive degree, and instead has relied heavily on the formal teachings and declarations of the Magesterium.
What the modern Roman church is discovering, however, is that the Vatican can talk until it is blue in the face about the teachings of the Magesterium, but if it is not backed up by liturgical life, it simply doesn't stick. The people in America poured out to big stadiums to treat JPII like a rock star, but they roundly ignored what he had to say on moral matters, if polling data is to be believed.
B16 would seem to understand that his church needs to reconnect with the ancient tradition (and his writings indicate that the Tridentine church was every bit as much in need of such a reconnection and reform as is the church of today -- just in different ways.)
It would very much surprise me if B16 began the (certainly needed) process of decentralization without linking it to a process of intensive catechesis, and more importantly, to the process of recognizing and reinforcing the importance of those laity who are promoting *the right kinds* of reforms. JPII seemed to be just as harsh on laity who challenged the actions (or inactions) of the Vaticans based on tradition as he was on those who challenged him because they didn't believe the teachings of Christianity. The fact of disobedience or dissent was more important than what the dissention was about.
This sort of dissent happens all the time in Orthodox churches -- laity challenging and arguing (usually respectfully) with their priests and bishops. While no-one in authority likes to be challenged, most clergy respond by listening carefully and being open to the fact that maybe a pious layman or a non-ordained monastic (the vast majority of our monastics are non-ordained) is more connected with the living tradition of the Church than is he, on a given point. If the person presenting the dissent, however, is basing what he has to say on something besides the tradition of the Church -- well, the priest usually either smiles and nods and ignores, or simply sets the person straight.