The bad popes of the past "merely" had personal vices: they were preoccupied with getting some woman, or some money, or some castle in Avignon. They were too absorbed in plain fleshly vices, the pursuit of wealth, pleasure or power, to give a flip over uninteresting stuff like doctrines concerning faith and morals.
This one is different. He actually has a zeal for doctrine and dogma. That is, he is dedicated to the controlled demolition of the intellectual, pastoral and spiritual structure of Catholicism.
A pope consumed by personal vices (mostly) damages himself and makes himself fit for hell.
A pope who is an energetic and dedicated enemy of doctrine can take down almost the entire Church.
I even have a hypothesis that God has permitted this present, very public political/moral catastrophe in order to stop Francis before he can enact lasting, formal dogmatic changes.
His credibility now --- and thus his ability to schmooze his way through via avuncular charm and faux-Franciscan piety --- is rapidly approaching zero.
`
For me, at least, he's in the "negative credibility" realm. This realm is also occupied by the likes of Barack 0bama, Hillary Clinton, Dan Rather and anybody on CNN.