I would except from my list any bishops that I am not sure about,this would start the beginnings of a list that is composed of the evil shepherds. Moving priests around once they committed a legitimate,defined crime or sin more than once is a sign,withholding info about the types of abuse that is occurring is another,ordaining clearly homosexual priests is another,not insisting that priests talk about sexual sins including active homosexuality,once a year is another.The kind of catechesis they offer should be rviewed,the liturgical license they permit is another,the lack of indults,removing the altar rails,desacralizing the churches and on and on.All of these abuses go hand in hand with the planned destruction of the Catholic Church from within.
It is very wrong to hold a bishop accountible for protecting priests when it surfaces long after the fact that a predessessor bishop had "taken"care of it.Anew bishop would be at the mercy of the chancery staff if he came in,asked if there were any problem priests and was told there were no problems only to be told at a much later date that there had been. If we want to clean up the Church we must be very careful with the statements we throw out as True.I think the number of bad bishops is much closer to ten to fifteen per cent.We have got to start developing a factual profile or we may destroy the good and be left with nothing but the ilk of the bad ones like Mahoney and Pilarchyc,Clark and Imesch and Pilla and Hubbard and Lynch and the rest of the evil ones.If I am wrong about any that I have named please let me know contrary information,I only look at a complex of symptoms since I can't know the mind of the bishop. But I do suspect if they don't think with the mind of the Church they are worthless.