At least you seem to see that the interviews was not as discredited as you made it out to be. But if the problem with popes words are to be explained as due to his impulsiveness, then it impugns the judgment of both the pope (as a leader must be wise enough to consider his audience and not sound so liberal as his defenders say he is not) and those who elected him. However, such have done far worse. I myself see Francis as humble and more relational than doctrinally minded, even if he also hold to a decidedly false gospel and other errors of Rome.
Much like the very first Bishop of Rome, I should think. Jesus named him "rock," --- presumably meaning "solid" --but he seemed to move this way and that in small avalanches.
However, this was pre pentecost Peter, not the type of man the pope purportedly is to be a replacement of.
As for Aquinas, keep in mind that in his age (as in most ages), serious theological dissent was held to be socially and even politically seditious,...
Indeed, and in our age today sexual freedom is the norm, but we are not to be conformed to this world or its ways. Not that i am not too much conformed myself, but excusing sanctioning torture to deal with theological dissent, when this is so contrary to the words and spirit of the NT, is so much special pleading. Early Prots also had to unlearn this.
So Aquinas was supplying more edifying reason for coercing true belief:
Which is a contradiction, as true belief is not be coerced by torture, which Benedict said was intrinsically evil.
Many would have derived that from Luke 14:23 - "And the lord said unto the servant, 'Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled."
Trying to defend this with that is torturing Scripture(!), as even if this refers to physical compulsion, the physical in parables have corresponding spiritual equivalence under the New covenant, and nowhere therein do we see physical compulsion being used to convert souls or even by the church in discipline for spiritual matters, as instead they did not "war after the flesh(2Cor. 10:3) but used spiritual means for both.
And besides, Aquinas didn't die for my sins.
Irrelevant, as the issue is the church of Rome, which also did not die for our sins, but torture and killing of theological dissidents even had manifest papal sanction.
It seems clear to me that errors of judgment have already been made by Pope Francis, by those who appointed him, and those whom he has appointed. How harmful or how anodyne, short term or long term, is going to be hard to sort out, as always.
As a Catholic, I am convinced that, as you rightly say, true belief is not be coerced by torture --- which Benedict said was intrinsically evil. I think Benedict has the backing of Divine and natural Law on that one. Other popes erred on this in the past, but did not introduce their errors into the de fidedoctrine of the Church.
Here's an interesting incident: Pope Innocent III, on the very day he died in Rome, appeared in flames to the Abbess Lutgarda in Brabant (Belgium) and said he was being punished for three great crimes he has committed. One can't know what they were, but I don't think I'm far wrong when I think of the Albigensian Crusade, the Fourth Crusade (sack of Constantinople) and the suppression of the Waldensians. His errand was to beg the abbess to have her sisters pray for his soul, let he remain in Purgatory until the end of time.
Incidents like that make me think that God allows torturers to get a good taste of their own medicine. And Purgatory is, by all accounts, precisely this: medicinal. I've never actually prayed for Innocent III, but maybe I will now. Maybe 8 centuries in flames is enough!
As for Francis, I personally think he will be good pope, because he is a good man following a good Master. And when he errs, he will do well to repent quickly and take correction graciously. Let's pray for him.