Accountability.

Blowing in the wind.
.
Several years ago I had a doctor I considered to be the best physician in the world, he was so kind and nice and caring.  One day as I was going to make an appointment with him, I found out he was no longer employed at the clinic I went to.  I found out he left in disgrace because his credentials had been falsified - he wasn't really a doctor at all.  I couldn't believe it, I called him at home and told him how sorry I was, that he was the best doctor I ever had, and would he be able to recommend someone like himself.  I never heard from him again.  With the new doctor I was finally diagnosed with actual illnesses my impostor doctor neglected to find.
.
Around the same time, a former nun who had been a prioress at a very observant monastery, was in town soliciting funds for her 'hermitage'.  The nun fancied herself a mystic and I felt rather privileged to be in her confidence.  I assumed she had canonical status and was attached, 'incardinated' with the order she had been associated with previously, seeing she used their initials after her name and all.  I was able to have a couple of communities make generous contributions to her 'order'.  Only later did I find out from the prioress of the community she left that the nun had been ex-cloistrated, she was soliciting funds without permission of the local ordinary, and she was using the name of the order illegally.  Since that time the nun had moved from diocese to diocese.  Minor details I suppose.  (To be fair, I believe she is a sister in good standing with her current diocese.)
.
Vetting.
.
I could go on and on with several examples of professionals not being exactly what they say they are, and/or well intentioned church people, lay and religious, hitting on sincere folks to help support their lifestyles by free-will donations.  For instance I know of a young man who travels abroad extensively, who even has a side business while asking donations to cover his studies.  Legit?  Probably.  In dire need of funds?  Doubtful.  But man, he sure is Catholic.
.
The point is, we have to be careful about following leaders/authorities who are in charge of nothing, or those whose credentials are if-fie at best.  And because someone says all the right stuff but still is an outsider, you gotta get some verifiable evidence before you throw support behind everyone.  What's the term today?  Vet - vetting.  But we Americans generally don't do that very well,  and conservative Americans may be the worst; if someone shows up waving all the right banners saying they are pro-life, anti-gay, and traditional - they are automatically labeled a good guy.  (Oh man!  And never criticise these people once they got the Good Housewives seal of approval.)  I may be exaggerating a bit, but you get what I'm saying.
.
Rumours.
.
One of my friends posted a sort of response to a rumor that unfortunately developed from an earlier post of mine.  (Link)  A discussion in the com-box ensued implying certain priests may have been black-listed (for lack of a better term) from ministering as a priest in this archdiocese.  That is not true however.  Nevertheless that seems to be an impression some lay people have regarding favorite priests of theirs, yet they - we - do not know the details.  And rightly so, since it is always a matter between the bishop and his priest.  Though a priest may not be incardinated in a specific diocese he visits, it is 'presumed' he would still be allowed to exercise his ministry there.  Nevertheless, it is common knowledge a few local priests are not ministering as priests (i.e. lacking an assignment) due to medical issues, and/or personal issues which require they be placed on leave or be given limited responsibilities.  Priests are people too - some have psychological issues just like lay people do - which at times precludes their functioning fully as priests.
.
Some men who attended seminary and for some reason or another were not permitted to go on to ordination for a particular diocese, often are able to find a bishop willing to sponsor them and ordain them elsewhere, providing they agreed to be incardinated in that bishop's diocese and serve that particular local Church.  Sometimes, not always, the man's home diocese may not appreciate all that transpired in the process.  Sometimes a priest can acquire a reputation and may be deemed unsuitable for a particular diocese - this is all speculation of course, and I am not referring to any particular circumstance.  In any event, the local ordinary makes the final decision as to whether a particular priest or deacon is a good fit for his diocese.  One must remember, the bishop is the head of a community of priests who have been ordained to assist him:  "He is to have a special concern for his priests, to whom he is to listen as his helpers and counsellors."  Can. 384.  Consequently it would be wrong to assume a person has been black-balled.
.
There ought to be a law.
.
As I mentioned, in a previous post (now removed), several issues presented in the comment box.  Perhaps a few sections from the Code of Canon Law can shed some light on matters related to incardination, fund-raising, etc..  Indeed, I have no knowledge of law, I'm simply reading it as it is written - in law everything depends upon interpretation for individual circumstances, doesn't it.  That is why there are lawyers and tribunals.
.
Actually, if I understand correctly, it is against Canon Law for a bishop to gratuitously refuse incardination to a cleric considered 'suitable and prepared' for ministry.  "Except for a grave need of his own particular Church, a Bishop is not to refuse clerics seeking to move whom he knows to be prepared and he considers suitable to exercise the ministry in regions which suffer from a grave shortage of clergy..." - Can. 271 - 1
.
That said, "Every cleric must be incardinated in a particular Church or a personal prelature, or in an institute of consecrated life or a society which has this faculty: accordingly, acepalous or 'wandering' clergy are by no means to be allowed." - Can. 265 
.
Ask questions.
.
Without going into much detail - the post is obviously too long as it is - I personally know another priest in an Eastern diocese who is something of a gyrovague or wanderer.  I am told the bishop of the place he resides wants him to leave, but he was ordained for another jurisdiction and he was not incardinated into the diocese he resides.  See, it all gets rather confusing and I'm not helping much since I'm purposely being a bit vague about this so as not to offend the priest in question.  However, the situation raises a few questions.  Since faculties are granted by the bishop within whose diocese a priest is incardinated, which includes permission to celebrate the sacrament of penance, what if a confession one makes to a wanderer priest is invalid or illicit due to the fact the bishop of the place did not grant faculties to him?  That is unlikely of course, since I believe permission can be 'presumed' canonically, but can you see where doubt might enter in?  (I actually worried about this once.)
.
As for fund raising, asking for donations - diocesan approval needs to be sought by clerics and religious - wandering or not.  (Although I do not know how that could be applied to the Internet.)  Yet there is interesting legislation in Canon Law regulating commerce and trade by clerics.  "Clerics are forbidden to practice commerce or trade, either personally or through another, for their own or another's benefit, except with the permission of the lawful ecclesiastical authority." - Can. 286
.
Again - I'm just asking questions here - I'm not accusing anyone of anything.
.