I generally avoid imputing evil intentions when stupidity will do.
I'm not saying that I think Pope Franky is “pure of heart.” I think he's shrewd in a political way, crafty in that way. I think he has an authoritarian streak that is a mile long. I also think he's very vain.
But I also think that if you were walk through his deepest theological thoughts, you wouldn't get your ankles wet.
This is why he often dichotomizes between the “teachers of the law” and the “faith of old women.” He's just not smart enough to keep up with the “teachers of the law,” so he denigrates them, and discounts their knowledge and expertise. This helps him to believe that his own deficient theological understanding is not problematic, and gives him the confidence to pronounce things that are flying 30,000 feet over his head. It also means that he sincerely doesn't understand the doctrinal implications of everything he says or does, and actually believes that his understanding is compatible with Catholic faith.
It may be that the overall effect on the Church will be little different between whether he's a full-blown, evil modernist, or just a dumb material heretic, as it appears that the actual modernists may be leading him around by the nose.
Nonetheless, charity requires me to give the benefit of the doubt - he's stupid, not evil.
sitetest
How long does one give the benefit of the doubt? What line have you drawn, if any?