This reminds me that I just read Pope Paul VI's letter to Archbishop Lefebvre in the appendix to "The Pope, the Council and the Mass." Paul VI had the exact same reputation, supposedly good and holy but avoiding confrontation. Apparently he only avoided confrontation with liberals, he was more than willing to be confrontational with Lefebvre and other traditionalists. Paul VI's letter is as confrontational as you can get. He is not interested in "dialogue," the only terms he'll discuss are unconditional surrender.
This is the exact same situation with these bishops. They have no trouble being confrontational with traditionalists. Cardinal McCarrick just refused to let the FSSP say a Latin Mass in the Basilica in DC. No hesitation about confrontation there. It's only the liberals with whom they refuse to be confrontational. The reason is obvious -- there's no point in confronting your allies with whom you agree.
Let's face it, there are no good bishops, with 1 or 2 possible exceptions out of 250. You're fooling yourself if you think that your bishop is any better than the rest.
Was there a reason explaining why? This stuff frosts me.
Confrontation... I suspect the bishops cave towards the progressives because they know the progs will do what they want to do anyway, regardless of what the bishop says. But imagine how crummy they (bishop) must feel inside? OK, publicly there was no brouhaha over whatever the issue was, but you know, in your heart and soul, that you - as a Catholic bishop who is supposed to defend and teach the Catholic faith - just let someone cow you into submission. The progs love the media and the media loves them. Georgetown... the media reported on the dissenting voices and why they were all upset, but I don't recall any media outlet contacting George Weigel or Fr. Neuhaus (who are certainly well known orthodox Catholics) for a soundbite to defend Cardinal Arinze and his defense of Catholic teaching.
It is the reason why those people who swoon at the mention of John XXIII's name never speak of Paul VI.
This is a colosally silly statement, Max, and I disagree with it totally!
I disagree with your conclusion. It doesn't necessarily follow that bishops agree with liberals. There could be many factors explaining an unwillingness to be "confrontational" with progressives compared to tradtionalists. The most obvious one to me is the whole "more Catholic than thou" attitude that traditionalists convey in their every utterance. It's a turn-off, and bishops being human, and bishops, might find this in your face, "your wrong",'"you're not doing it right" attitude extremely displeasing. Confrontation breeds confrontation.....you reap what you sow.
Contrast that with the progressive's methodology, in which reason, tact, and respect are employed. For instance, why not have altar girls? Wouldn't it increase the involvement of women in the church? Wouldn't it help to inculcate a truly Christian climate of inclusiveness and help to eliminate the patriarchal stigma the Church is criticized for having? Reasonable assertions, no?
One more example would be our own resident married clergy proponent. Though he is as adament in his position as are tradtionalists in theirs, I can't recall him villifying the pope or calling anyone a fool for disagreeing, or abandoning the church for one that agrees with him on that point. And though I have not observed any one being persuaded by his common sense arguments, in fact he is nearly unanimously opposed, he still enjoys the respect and comraderie of most everyone that engages him.
Style can account for a lot.