Dear Rome (Take 2)

In keeping with Cleansing Fire's suggestion to share Forward in Hope with a friend, I have decided to start a template for a letter to send to our friends in Rome.  Perhaps doing so will make it easier for others to take the same course of action.  This template is in the form of a collaborative google doc so that everyone can contribute and customize as they wish.  I took a stab at a first draft, but please feel free to make additions, modifications, fix typos, etc.  I believe google keeps the history of the document, so don't worry about screwing it up.  Here it is:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AUWmZX8HtwWHZGhkOHZqbnpfMTg1NGZjOHM4Y3o&hl=en

Are you perplexed as to why we are writing to Rome?  Read Cleansing Fire's review of the Bishop's new book:

1. Backward In Obedience: A Book Review of Forward in Hope
2. Bishop Clark On Obedience
3. Creation of a Parallel Hierarchy 
4. The Role of the Lay Pastoral Administrator in the Mass
5. The Diocese of Rochester's Erroneous Interpretation of Canon 517.2   
6. Charlotte Bruney's Comments
7. Bishop Clark on Lay Preaching

As always let us remember to remain charitable at all times.  If we aren't motivate by love-of-God, then we will surely find ourselves in a situation like this:




Note: I did a double take on this post.  If you happened to read "Take 1", then please accept my apology for including a presumptuous idea.  If you follow along with the CAF thread in my previous post, you'll find it suggested that being informative is a much better tactic than offering suggestions as to how Rome should respond.  I took that advice as I believe it to be correct.  So then the question remained whether or not to even raise the issue in a public setting (such as this blog).  After once again thinking and praying about whether or not to continue with this post, I have come to the conclusion that I have a duty to do so.  My explanation is that it is not us who has made this issue public.  Bishop Clark's book is publicly available, so it only makes sense for it to be critiqued in public.  This logic is supported by 2 examples:

1. Bishop Tobin's public statement to Congressman Kennedy.  In a similar manner Bishop Tobin states that it was not he that brought the debate out into the public, but since that's where it ended up, then that's where he will engage it.
2. Ed Peter's offers options as to how to respond to the Albany diocese's needle exchange program.  Dr. Peters displays exactly how to share information, even offer his own understanding, but not presuming what action the hierarchy should take.

Another enlightening piece of data in this regard is Canon 212

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they [laypeople] have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.