NYer—
I hate to disagree with your optimism, but I don’t see things moving so quickly that there is a need to even apply an emergency brake for things to glide to a stop.
I glanced through the whole of New York province, and do not see any really notable episcopal moves. Kmeic and Clark both passed 75 and were retired on those grounds—and not immediately, at least in Clark’s case (resignation was accepted on St. Matthew’s feast, five months after his birthday). Brooklyn and New York each have one auxillary who has taken early retirement—but the NY one was in 2002, so hardly a B16 move, and the Brooklyn one was only a few years short of 75. The Bishops of the 70’s are nearly all gone, and the 80’s are following, but that is a function of attrition rather than shrewdness.
There have been a few very early retirements in the past year, but I believe that they are more in the order of a dozen or two—I do follow episcopal appointments closely.
If Hubbard has been secretly replaced, I’ll be impressed—but it looks like another case of aging out. Less than 8 months to go at this point.
There also isn’t a whole lot to work with in many places. Ouellet has greatly impressed me with what he has done in Quebec building something from virtually nothing, but humanly speaking I doubt that it is replicable on a world-wide scale because he lacks first hand knowledge of most places and finding subordinates who are trustworthy and can gather and emply knowledge is difficult in the Church.
I still don’t understand Levada (I grew up in Oregon).
While the secret dossier will need to be dealt with immediately, putting it off is one way of dealing with it.
I think the number of really lame Cardinals likely exceeds a third—and that the number of zealous Cardinals may approach a third. Pray and fast.
Several years ago, I posted a thread entitled: Why Doesn't the Pope Do Something about "Bad" Bishops?" Link. In the article, Fr. Robert Johansen explains:
When it comes to dealing with an erring bishop, a pope is far more likely to employ methods such as persuasion, fraternal correction, and gentle chiding than he is to wield the club of discipline—much less the atomic bomb of removal. There are at least three reasons for this. The first is charity: If a bishop is saying or doing bad or dumb things, we are all—especially the pope—obliged to assume in charity that he is well-intentioned and is acting either out of ignorance or confusion, barring evidence to the contrary (supposition, conjecture, and probability do not count as evidence).The second reason that a pope will be reluctant to attempt to discipline a bishop is that of evidence. As I pointed out above, the Church always has viewed removing a bishop as drastic surgery, fraught with danger in and of itself. So there needs to be very strong evidence that the damage done by removing a bishop will be less than the damage caused by his remaining.
The third reason popes are reluctant to depose bishops is the danger of schism. Whenever a bishop is removed, there is at least the possibility that he may elect to leave the Church altogether and set up on his own church, taking many of the faithful with him.
While I cannot speak of Kmeic, Bishop Clark is the one who was removed upon his retirement. Normally, when a bishop retires, he is asked to remain on until such time as a replacement is named. In the case of Bishop Clark, the situation is quite different. I don't know of any other but I have not pursued it any further. On September 21, 2012, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Robert Cunningham, the bishop of Syracuse, as Apostolic Administrator of the Rochester Diocese. He will oversee the Rochester Diocese until a permanent bishop has been appointed. Bishop Matthew Clark announced his retirement that same Friday morning, effective immediately.
The Holy Father has approached this, as I pointed out earlier, in as quiet a manner as possible. We just saw a similar situation played out with Scotland's Cardinal Keith O'Brien. On February 25, 2013, the UK's most senior Roman Catholic cleric, resigned as the head of the Scottish Catholic church after being accused of "inappropriate acts" towards fellow priests. Initially, he denied the allegations. However, in a statement released by the church, it emerged that the pope had accepted O'Brien's resignation a week earlier, on 18 February. Two days ago, the cardinal admitted sexual misconduct. Fortunately, he has chosen not to participate in the conclave.
If Hubbard has been secretly replaced, I’ll be impressed—but it looks like another case of aging out. Less than 8 months to go at this point.
Given what I posted above, it should come as no surprise that he has been allowed to remain in place until his retirement. He probably believes he dodged a bullet with the pope's resignation. Last week's edition of The Evangelist, the official newspaper for the RC Diocese of Albany, featured a picture of the Holy Father, above which was written in bold uppercase font:
There was no pretense about the bishop's feelings on the matter.