The one single act that would benefit the diocese of Cleveland quickly and greatly is the departure of Richard Lennon. His removal is possible, and it is permitted. The people have always had the right to remove a bishop. The current population is somewhat ignorant of that right and tradition. They have allowed themselves to be cowed by clericalism. see: Odium populi, odium plebes. see: Is totalitarianism acceptable in the episcopacy?
Anyone considering becoming a Catholic near Cleveland, if they had true knowledge of Lennon, would have to overcome that. He is a repellant. So many parishioners shutter when they see Lennon in their church. But as with so many other things in the US, the establishment is protected from the masses. This is the way one can tell if someone is of the establishment or not. If one is not, then criticism of him and attempts to remove him are tolerated and encouraged. If he is of the establishment, then criticism of him is stifled, 'voices' supporting him are given air, and attempts to remove him are not given notice.
Lennon has been protected by the editors of the Plain Dealer. The lennonist party has been free to give their unchallenged rationale without critical examination, and certainly not a rebuttal. Letters defending Lennon, and attacking his critics have been printed without identifying the business relations of the writer to the diocese. Recently, a television reporter was given space to reel off a number of fictions, and demanded a trumpeting piece of praise to be printed on Lennon's fundraising (shake down) acumen, and the paper delivered an article to that effect. Now, some people complain of the reporting of articles that touch on lennonism, but the reporters try diligently to be factual, and the facts do not flatter Lennon as do the opinions of his supporters. As with the Wall Street Journal (before Murdoch, the owner of Fox cable) when the front page stories are in conflict with the editorial pages, believe the reporters.
And, after i wrote the three paragraphs supra, i read to-day's Plain Dealer editorial heaping praise on Lennon's fundraising. O, it is all false propaganda, every statement is part of a deception and a lie. In regards to the fundraising see:
When they say it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.
the american bishops' plan
How much does Lennon like money?
Rooted in Faith ~ Forward in Hope
The Diocese of Arlington's Capital Fundraising Initiative
Here's the agency that created Lennon's fundraising campaign. They advertise Cleveland, and San Jose California using it. http://www.ccsfundraising.com/catholic-dioceses
postscriptum: As i have said in many private conversations, "management lies". Management wants to control labor, the interest is not in truth, but in power. Sometimes people recognise this. Under 'totalitarian' governments, there were always enthusiastic supporters, many who were ambitious. Others, knew. There is a certain φρόνημα (phronema), as St. Paul and Blessed John Henry Newman indicate, an instinctual collective property of discernment of truth. They were speaking of the Faith and the Spirit, but there is also one of the Truth. People can sense the Truth when they are fed lies and verbal nonsense. As we crudely say, we have a 'bullshit detector'. So even a co-ordinated campaign does not convince everyone. That campaign has to be continuous, and it still does not fool everyone. Prudence, often suggests to acknowledge this silently.
postscriptum ii. 9 May: I forgot to note, 'vibrant' and 'vibrancy' are words that Lennon bandies about and does not define. In this shakedown context, we see these terms applied to the success of money accumulation. So a 'vibrant' community/parish is one that delivers money to the chancery. So the anawim (click, here too) can never be vibrant.