Perhaps. He's certainly an unabashed Martini Modernist.
Martini Pope. The Dream Come True
"Jesuit, archbishop of Milan and cardinal, he was the most authoritative and highly praised antagonist of the pontificates of Wojtyla and Ratzinger. His supporters see today in Francis the one who has inherited his legacy. And is putting it into practice"
Pope Francis:
"For this little "escapade", Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents. The Gospel doesn't say this, but I believe that we can presume it."
Pope St. Pius X:
"We, Venerable Brethren, for whom there is but one and only truth, and who hold that the Sacred Books, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, have God for their author (Conc. Vat., De Revel., c. 2) declare that this is equivalent to attributing to God Himself the lie of utility or officious lie, and We say with St. Augustine: In an authority so high, admit but one officious lie, and there will not remain a single passage of those apparently difficult to practise or to believe, which on the same most pernicious rule may not be explained as a lie uttered by the author wilfully and to serve a purpose. (Epist. 28). And thus it will come about, the holy Doctor continues, that everybody will believe and refuse to believe what he likes or dislikes. But the Modernists pursue their way gaily..."
(PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X ON THE DOCTRINES OF THE MODERNISTS)
The fundamental problem is that BOTH are presuming to have some kind of say about the bible that isn’t actually taken as coming from the bible. Pius takes the defense approach, but the important thing it seems here, is that it has to be defended by the church... not that we can count on it to stand as the written form of the voice of God. Defending something too vigorously actually tends to make it look like it’s depending on you.
Oh, and also upholding and defending aren’t the same thing. The Protestants upheld the bible... Pius defended the bible... not the same thing.