Who is in charge of the Archdiocese of Toronto?

The title is not rhetorical. I have come to believe that the Archdiocese is bogged down - somewhat reflective of the CCCB's mode of operations - in a bureaucratic structure where no one gets the blame and everyone can take the credit. The most recent example of CCCB ineptitude was the website of the bishops conference maintaining speeches of self-admitted and then convicted pervert/child porn consumer, Raymond Lahey. Eventually the rubbish was removed, but it took about two months to accomplish - and with intense pressure.

Of course it goes much deeper than just ineptitude and the millions per annum spent in employing laity (on the proverbial widow's mite). But already that is an indication of corruption that would horrify the persecuted and poor church of the third world. 

The bureaucratic structure is reflective of a perception of what "church" is by those who have created and/or facilitated this. One major example of Archdiocesan malefaction is the inability or lack of desire to communicate with the laity. An example, and comparison: 

Over the past year, this blog and the blog, Vox Cantoris, have been involved - though we would rather not be - in reporting on abuse - gross abuse - of our churches' Sanctuaries as platforms for concerts. Today is not the time to go back over all the repugnant details. Today will not be a time to give you time and place of upcoming abuse (and yes, the abuse is still continuing). This example is mentioned, as it is an example of a refusal of the Archdiocese to communicate with concerned laity over the matter to put an end to said abuse. Charitably, could it be not so much a refusal, as - like in the Lahey case - there are no clear lines of authority, so nothing ever gets done. 

Today, will be a day to lament the change between the reign of the late Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic and the present change in governance of H.E. Collins. I recall a time when sending a letter off to the late Cardinal always received a reply. I recall a time when a call to the bishop - actually resulted in a call back from the bishop. Now we seem to have shifted into a situation where the Cardinal has walled himself off, unless appearing in carefully structured public appearances - akin to managed publicity.

 Who is responsible? Does the present Cardinal even receive mail sent to him by the laity? I have no guarantee that he does. And if, so, why does he never reply? I recall, when he had just become Archbishop: he did answer an email I sent him. But no more. Something has changed...

This may seem trivial; but it is not. One of the major tasks of a bishop is to communicate with the laity. Occasional appearances on TV and radio is publicity, not communication. The release of occasional statements etc. a Pastoral Plan (replete with unsavory cash grab plans vis-a-vis legacies) is not communication.  Are we dealing more and more with the Archdiocese as a registered corporate entity, rather than a local church of Jesus Christ? This question reflects the same ambiguity that hovers over the Knights of Columbus: are they a charity that runs a billion dollar insurance empire, or, are they an insurance company, that runs a charity on the side. Serious questions, and serious answers are needed. 

What we need is a bishop who is in direct touch and contact with the laity. We don't have this. Something needs to change. Consider Pope John Paul as Bishop of Rome and his personal, pastoral outreach to parishes. 

We need an archbishop, not a managed public personality by bureaucrats. I am very interested in constructive feedback.