[Desdemona]

Part of the problem with what Rome can do is how the channels are set up and how information is disseminated.

Where I see positive change (read: orthodox tradition and sticking to the rubrics of Mass) is where the laity are holding the clergy's feet to the fire, if they can and if they know that it is their right to do so. (Some clergy are rather strong willed about things.) A good part of the problem is that when a directive is sent out, it is sent to the chanceries and it is up to the bishop to communicate and implement it. This is where things get sticky. There are those who would never think to look anywhere but the bishop for what was said. If the directive is ignored or communicated completely wrong, then it is up to the laity to research and find out if the bishops are correct and there are more than not who just won't expend the energy.

[johnb2004]

What you say is true. My point is that when the laity offer evidence that abuses or error are intentionally tolerated or propagated why does Rome not use more forceful methods than the usual directive which is ignored? Here is my question and I am not being sarcastic. Which is of greater value a so-called pastoral approach which treads lightly on the prelates involved or the immortal souls of the faithful who may be lead to perdition by such prelates who advocate error?