I also think your assessment, “However, the bad bishops continued in power, “ is a bit harsh, although not false.
John Paul II did not oust Mahony from office, for instance, and he was terribly heretical. His strategy seemed to be simply to inspire more faithful priests to eventually displace the heretics, and this seemed extremely successful, although painfully slow.
And while he didn’t remove heretics, he countered them brilliantly. When he took office, faithful American catholics expected that the church would soon reverse itself on matters like birth control, premarital sex, abortion, the ordination of women. By the time he left, everyone knew these were unthinkable.
Understanding Alinkyite tactics, I don’t believe removing heretics from office could possibly have been successful. If he went after only the worst offenders, their supporters would still have been the vast majority of American bishops, and he would’ve been seen as reactionary, divisive, and irrelevant. If he went after all heretics, there would scarcely be a bishop left in America, and no priests to appoint in their place. Even if he were successful beyond any reasonable expectation, the best he would accomplish would be like ripping dandelion’s heads off. But my estimation is that he simply would have been on the losing end of a schism.
Brute force never succeeded since the days of the reformation. The counter-reformation was accomplished by preaching, praying, and fasting.
I should be more careful in my wording.
Mahony was smart enough to avoid formal heresy. He trapped Mother Angelica good, when she noted that his explanation of the Eucharist had nothing to do with transubstantiation: he didn’t actually deny it, and, despite her apologies for her poor choice of words and lack of charity in interpreting Mahony’s remarks, Mahony was pretty much able to ruin her.
What I mean to say is that Mahony allowed all manner of outrage and faithless teaching in his diocese, while sicking his dogs on those who taught the truth. Mahony didn’t merely fail to present the whole picture: his comments about the eucharist which Mother Angelica picked up on were not actually FALSE, but so lacking in any important truth as to constitute grave falsehood. If someone were to describe their marriage as “yeah, I bang her most Saturdays for something to do,” would you not be outraged? Yes, marriage includes sexuality, which is enjoyable, so the statement isn’t wrong, but is horrifyingly disrespectful.
I should be more careful in my wording.
Mahony was smart enough to avoid formal heresy. He trapped Mother Angelica good, when she noted that his explanation of the Eucharist had nothing to do with transubstantiation: he didn’t actually deny it, and, despite her apologies for her poor choice of words and lack of charity in interpreting Mahony’s remarks, Mahony was pretty much able to ruin her.
What I mean to say is that Mahony allowed all manner of outrage and faithless teaching in his diocese, while sicking his dogs on those who taught the truth. Mahony didn’t merely fail to present the whole picture: his comments about the eucharist which Mother Angelica picked up on were not actually FALSE, but so lacking in any important truth as to constitute grave falsehood. If someone were to describe their marriage as “yeah, I bang her most Saturdays for something to do,” would you not be outraged? Yes, marriage includes sexuality, which is enjoyable, so the statement isn’t wrong, but is horrifyingly disrespectful.
“If he went after all heretics, there would scarcely be a bishop left in America, and no priests to appoint in their place.” - D
What is the value in preserving such an entity?
Would it not be better to start over, based on the proper teachings of Christ?