John XXIII’s status is more ambiguous, given the oddities surrounding the conclave in which he was elected.
I’m of the opinion that he was not a true Pope. (I also don’t think he was a bumbling idiot, either.)
I know all about those oddities, i.e., Cardinal Siri.
It's also obvious there were oddities about Bergoglio's election.
But why do you give Roncalli the benefit of the doubt, but not Bergoglio?