CathInfo.com

"proprietry"?  We're in a state of emergency in the Church, and the bishops being consecrated, just like the priests who are being ordained, are little more than emergency dispensers of the Sacraments.  We're not talking about Ordinaries here.  And who's going to "scrutinize" these bishops, we armchair theologians on CathInfo?  Or one Trad group is going to "scrutinize" the bishops of a rival Trad group?  Generally, the bishop determines and is in the best position to determine whether the candidate is suitable for being an emergency dispenser of Sacraments, the biggest question in that capacity being whether the one who's consecrated will start laying hands on any warm body for priestly ordination.

Apart from what I believe to be a completely subjective criterion above, you'll find that the greatest critics of the "secret" consecrations are various SVs who are nearly all served by priests who descend from the +Thuc line.  Who "scrutinized" or knew beforehand about the consecrations of +de Lauriers (form whom +Sanborn descends) and +Carmona / +Zamora?  Answer:  nobody.  These consecrations took place with only Drs. Hiller and Heller in attendance, in +Thuc's little apartment, and were not pre-announced for "scrutiny".  There's a lot of hypocrisy there.  Similarly, Bishop Kelly impugns the validity of the +Thuc consecrations partly on the grounds of their "secrecy" ... and then goes of and gets himself secretly consecrated by +Mendez (keeping it under wraps for a couple years until +Mendez had died).  It's just nonsensical politics from those who have an ax to grind against +Vigano and/or +Williamson.

Conditional Sacraments have always generally been performed in relative obscurity and without much fanfare.