Oh come on.
I'm going to explain why splitting a pope into two personalities to excuse his spiritual misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance is a fools errand, but first, a little history:
Michael has a long history of taking the position that criticism of a Pope's spiritual malpractice is a disservice to Christ's Church. His position is not without controversy.
Michael's apostolate pitches itself as a vortex where 'lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed'. With the exception of the Pope, he's done an outstanding job exposing lies and falsehoods of anyone and everyone who teaches in the Name of the Church. He's been a tremendous help to Boston Catholics in the past. It stands to reason, if the exposition of corruption of everyone underneath a pope effectively stalls and obstructs spiritual abuse of everyone underneath a pope, the same stratagem works for a pope who is misleading Catholics from Church teaching and truth. Some suggest that Church Militant purse strings are controlled by Opus Dei members, but Michael says he's concerned criticism of the pope leads Catholic families already scandalized and abused by 60 years of spiritual treachery of priests, bishops and Cardinals to despair and separation. This just doesn't make sense to me. Moreover, it doesn't gel with the wisdom and counsel of Canon law.
It's been my experience that refusing to acknowledge corruption and fight against it the exact dysfunction that led to (and leads to) the despair of our people.
We refused to acknowledge the large number of sexually-obsessed homosexual priests who were attacking faithful Catholic families in parishes. We refused to acknowledge their enablers in the Chanceries. We were intimidated by them. We lacked the backbone and courage to tell Father (and his enablers) that what he was doing to those families was spiritually malicious. This is the form of enabling that causes victims of sexual and spiritually-abusive priests to despair and flee.
Exposing abuse where it exists, fighting against it, defending and protecting victims, keeps 95% of those with the tendency to despair from fleeing Christ's Church. There is a small number of victims whose effects from the separation from the Sacraments is so deep-seated, we are unable to help. But, the overwhelming majority of scandalized are relieved and energized when abusers are being hampered and chased back into the rabbit holes by exposing their deeds.
I know that Michael is aware of this, because that's the efficacy of his apostolate. Whatever the reasons Michael likes to pull his own leg, the Holy Father's latest has finally caused Church Militant to draw a line in the sand.
But, rather than come clean, Voris tries his darndest convince people that when the pope leads Catholics into sin and error, we are all supposed to be relieved that he isn't robbing our relatives of salvation in his official role of pope.
The man who is the current pope is wrong in his very personal, very fallible opinion presented as a mere man, and not as Pope. God does not make people gay, and such a person is not born that way.
Jorge Bergoglio is wrong...If Bergoglio the man — not Francis the Pope — did indeed say that..So let's be clear here. The opinion of the man Jorge Bergoglio means absolutely nothing in this regard. He is not a psychologist...
Listen, the role of pope isn't a job. There is no hour or nanosecond when a pope is off the clock. When he's in his pajamas, he's the pope. When he's in the shower, he's the pope. A pope is a pope 24/7.
The role of a pope is parental. Just like a mother could never be in the same room as her children, do or say something that damages them, and then suggest she didn't damage her child in her role as a mother.
If a pope starts talking and after he's finished hundreds of thousands of uncatechized believe God creates sexual depravity and likes it, he's hurting people. Some of them irreparably.
It is absolute balderdash to suggest the loss of salvation is less painful because he somehow wasn't the pope when he said it.