It's almost humorous how ostrich-like many treat any criticism of the previous pontiff immediately by branding it as "protestant", "schismatic", "hateful", "nuts", without even as much discussing the objective merits of the argument presented. The author presented objective facts and formed a conclusion; in response, you all present ad hominem attacks and dismissive remarks. Fine if you don't agree with him, but at least give some evidence and analysis to the support your response. It actually gives more credibility to the article that none can give an adequate argument to the contrary of his suppositions.
At least look have the honesty to consider at how we have arrived to the present crisis in the Church... do you deny that we are infected by the sum of all heresies, which the Pope himself acknowledged, or do you deny that he had any responsibility to stop it and not implicitly encourage it?