I don’t mind people looking for the “backstory” or whatever, trying to see why this statement was made now. Certainly, there are reasons for it but no reasons were given. So, speculation is to be expected.
What I am more concerned about is the way that commentary gets basic facts wrong. Again, here is what canon 579 says:
Rorate says the consultation “… was *pro forma *and not at all considered a condition for the very validity of the erection.” Actually, most (English language) commentaries I have seen on canon 579 said that the consultation seems to be a requirement for validity. The use of the phrase “provided that” is an indication that this is the case.
Relatedly, and this is a second problem with the Rorate commentary, this “consultation” has been demanded for 100 years, at least. In the old law, if a bishop erected an institute without consultation, it was thought that his action was “voidable.” So, for the article to say that this is “an area that has always been under the great autonomy of each individual Ordinary” is not accurate.
Really, we can go back to the Fourth Lateran Council’s (1215) outright ban on new religious orders. The bottom line: individual bishops have not always had a “great autonomy” in this sphere.
Dan
Their blog-roll has been steadily diminishing too; I remember they used to have some pretty racy stuff there, but now it’s quite tame. 
Great post, thanks for the info!