that some Latin bishops, through acquired wisdom, suspected that the (Western) Roman Empire was in the phase of collapse but chose to say nothing because (1) they knew they could not effect change, or (2) thought it wasn't their role to lecture rulers from the pulpit or letters addressed to their churches, or (3) realized through humility that they could be wrong and did not want to use their chair to speak about particular circumstances?
Or it may be, of course, that anything they wrote or said with respect to collapse did not survive or was not recorded.
“Previous ‘framings’ of the story are unilinear,” says George Weigel about his new book The Irony of Modern Catholic History, “modernity acts, Catholicism reacts, end of story. But there has been much more going on, these past two hundred fifty years, than an action-reaction cycle.”
There is no "modern" project unless that is the project of the state, whether it be called secular or atheist; the state exalts itself above God.
Nothing new from Weigel who is stuck seeing the patriarchate of Rome as the "Church" and the state as "modernity." (And now there is the state elites versus the "globalist" elites, though many of the latter are also part of the former.)