"There exists a certain institution or a law; let us call it, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gayly up to it and says: 'I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.'" [G.K. Chesterton, in The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic]
Sorry. Of course, that should be 'nihil sub sole novum.'
Look, the laity needs LEVERAGE. Right now we are doormats, with our intelligence insulted at every turn. We are expected to react with docility to men who are part of a corrupt network of cronies, many of them gay, many of them corrupt, many of them even without real faith. Rome plays along and gives us mediocre-to-bad bishops because it refuses to reform the present system. What is necessary is a new relationship between clergy and laity. This relationship should not be to give us more to do in the sanctuary. That is not our provence. It should be to give us more to do with the worldly affairs that pertain to the Church--like tusteeships of parishes--which in turn will give us more clout with Rome. There is no reason on earth why the old Medieval model should have been retained well into the 21st century since the laity is nowadays so much better educated and capable. I don't expect us to return to the early Church model in which the people themselves will elect their own bishops--but we should certainly have more input in the selection process. Right now we are invisible and mute, merely suffering whatever fortune alots to us. For the most part this means we are given men who are not very spiritual. We could hardly do worse.