The above is a reference to Pope Francis, quoted by this pro-homosexualist Jesuit, Fr.John Whitney. This does not show Francis "enabling" a Whitney, but rather Whitney trying to use Francis.
Read it again: a "fearless proclamation of Christ and the Gospel" does not equal advocacy of sodomy, and making an "uproar" for the Lord, does not mean creating a moral catastrophe for the Church.
In short, this whole thing is on Whitney, not on Pope Francis.
On your second point: you claim that POpe Francis promoted a "well-known twinkletoes, Msgr. Ricca."
Unless you know with moral certainty that Ricca is a sodomite, this statement of yours constitutes slander by insinuation (since I assume that by "twinkletoes" you mean "sodomite," not Irish step dancer.) It requires, from you or anyone who repeats it, not just repentance but restitution.
I know with certainty that Ricca is a sodomite.
The intimacy of the relations between Ricca and Haari was so open as to scandalize numerous bishops, priests, and laity of that little South American country, not last the sisters who attended to the nunciature.
The new nuncio, Janusz Bolonek of Poland, who arrived in Montevideo at the beginning of 2000, also found that “ménage” intolerable immediately, and informed the Vatican authorities about it, insisting repeatedly to Haari that he should leave. But to no use, given his connections with Ricca.
In early 2001 Ricca also got into a scrape over his reckless conduct. One day, having gone as on other occasions - in spite of the warnings he had received - to Bulevar Artigas, to a meeting place for homosexuals, he was beaten and had to call some priests to take him back to the nunciature, with his face swollen.
On this score, I was told by three sources in Argentina that the Times basically got it right: Bergoglio did, in fact, favor civil unions.
That was confirmed on background by two senior officials of the bishops’ conference in Argentina, both of whom worked with Bergoglio and took part in the behind-the-scenes discussions as the conference tried to shape its position.
“Bergoglio supported civil unions,” one of those officials told me.
Mariano de Vedia, a veteran journalist for La Nación, has covered church/state issues in Argentina for years and said he could confirm Bergoglio’s position had been correctly described in the Times account.
Guillermo Villarreal, a Catholic journalist in Argentina, said it was well known at the time that Bergoglio’s moderate position was opposed by Archbishop Héctor Rubén Agüer of La Plata, the leader of the hawks. The difference was not over whether to oppose gay marriage, but how ferociously to do so and whether there was room for a compromise on civil unions.
Villareal described the standoff over gay [sic] marriage as the only vote Bergoglio ever lost during his six years as president of the conference. [N.B. The “vote” was a majority of the Bishops’ Conference in Argentina overruling the then-Cardinal’s civil union endorsement.]
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/04/ncr-report-from-argentina-bergoglio-did.html
So should we ignore the published reports of this man's activities because we haven't observed his illicit behavior firsthand? Perhaps we should also give Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt. Let's not set the standard for public figures so ridiculously high that we ignore multiple published reports out of misplaced scruples. This man's behavior is well-known, yet Pope Francis appointed him. What does that tell us about his judgement?