USCCB vs. Vatican II (and History)

We've had more than a few questions about the USCCB (Conference of Catholic Bishops), mostly because it is exactly what its founder, (Cdl.) Jos. Bernardin, wanted it to be:  a disruptive influence between Rome and US Catholics.  It's also an expensive venture, by the way--and Pope Benedict XVI had not-subtly suggested that "Bishops' Conferences" should be trash-canned.

Well, USCCB, like any bureaucracy, will survive just like cockroaches, and yes, that analogy is intentional.

Bernardin's dreams continue to bear fruit, too!!

[W]hile debating an atheist via an internet list site....[we were] discussing the historicity of the Resurrection. Attempting to rebut my use of the Gospel of Matthew as a historical book written by an eyewitness to relevant events, the atheist cited an authority to show that I, a Catholic, could not use Matthew as a reliable historical source written by an eyewitness. What was his authoritative source?  Was it some scholar-atheist? No. Was is some wacko, liberal protestant theologian? No. It was none of above. No, the atheist had cited an article found on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  To be more specific, he provided a link to the bishops’ introduction to the Gospel of Matthew

To put it bluntly, the USCCB website is full of s*&^.  The author (at the link) demolishes that assertion six ways from Sunday, along with the companion assertion that the Gospel of Mark PRECEDED the Gospel of Matthew--also found at the Milorganite-laden USCCB site.

It would be nice, I suppose, to have some  US Bishop take a look at the US Bishop's very own website and--I dunno--assure that the website is orthodox, maybe?? 

Benedict's idea was the better one, of course.  Demolish USCCB, not just the website.  But cockroaches are notorious for good reason, particularly if there is no corragio midst the Bishops.  And there ain't.