There’s no set systematic procedure (like the recall provisions in some state constitutions), but since the Catholic Church is a hierarchy, and the bishop of San Francisco is pretty far up the hierarchy, essentially the Vatican has to be made aware of a problem in a diocese.
In principle, that information could be transmitted by the papal nuncio to the US, if he’s a guy whose got a good feel for the problems in the country; alternatively, a group of orthodox American bishops could make a case to the nuncio or directly to the Pope (a tough bet, since it’s essentially a case of turning on one of your own, like a cop turning in a cop).
But if the Pope becomes convinced a bishop is failing in his duty to lead his diocese on a path that brings its flock nearer to holiness, then he can replace that bishop with one he trusts more. That bishop could then provide a new direction in terms of policy, move troublesome priests into less-problematic positions, and the like.
When the clerical abuse scandal in Boston reached a point where it boiled over even to Rome, the Pope moved its bishop, Cardinal Law (who although theologically orthodox failed in this leadership task) into a post in the bureaucracy, and brought in a new bishop to try to clean things up.
Despite its reputation as a monolithic structure, the Catholic Church is surprisingly diverse in the range of views and policies you’ll find among its bishops. So you don’t see them getting bounced too often. But it can happen, and sometimes does.
By the way, your tagline is spot-on -— other than Prohibition, the 17th was the biggest mistake since the slavery-related clauses in the original document.
Thank you for your reply.
- - -
“...that information could be transmitted
by the papal nuncio to the US...”
- - -
“papal nuncio”...is that a person?
Or a group of people?
Surely he (they?) knows what is going on...
Are you saying that someone has to “officially”
rat these renegades out to the pope, himself?