A while back, I saw an analysis that showed that even if every bishop stays until 75, the pope will need to appoint more than one bishop per month in the United States for a couple of decades.
That raises the question of - whom do you appoint?
It sounds like an easy enough question - but it isn’t.
I imagine it takes some work to identify men who are currently orthodox priests who could be elevated to the episcopate. And then, I’ve noticed that sometimes, folks appointed who are relatively young, and who seem orthodox at the time, often seem to go awry. I remember when Cardinal Mahoney was appointed, he appeared to be a conservative.
Then there is the problem that many bishops, as pointed out elsewhere, seem to think that they’re CEO rather than shepherds. They may be personally orthodox, but they become incompetent bishops. Many orthodox priests who work in dioceses run by bishops like this may not have had good role models, and once appointed, may act like CEOs, themselves.
It's probably quite difficult to vet good bishops. Accelerating the already-brisk rate of replacements might lead to more errors in making appointments in the future.
sitetest
Good points, but something still must be done. The Vatican could concentrate on the most problematic dioceses.
Not every Bishop is cut out for mitre-work. That’s no problem. The problem comes from letting bad Bishops screw up a diocese for 20+ years of bad teaching or no teaching at all, as it makes it very difficult for a newly appointed Bishop who is cut out for mitre-work to reclaim/correct that diocese. Communication/transportation technology exists today, so I don’t think there is much of an excuse for allowing an unlucky diocese to twist for 20+ years with a Bishop not cut out for mitre-work.
Freegards