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.
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, understood by all: the accuser would say "This is sedition," and the accused would say "Damn right it is." So Aquinas was supplying more edifying reason for coercing true belief: not just saving the king's and bishop's britches, but primarily to push a person back into the way of salvation: if his body is compelled, his mind may follow.
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."
That view fell during the 16th century Wars of Religion, where it drowned in blood: Catholic, Reformed and Anabaptist. No Christian would take that view now.
And besides, Aquinas didn't die for my sins.
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.