I think there is more than a grain of validity to all those accusations, but if I had to nail down what I think is most problematic with Pope Francis' stated theological opinions, it would have to be immanentism. This is the beginning of a thought, really, based on the forward to Fr. Chad Ripperger's treatise, The Binding Force of Tradition, written by Fr. James McLucas. Fr. McLucas writes:
Anyone familiar with Father Ripperger's overall analysis of the roots of the current crisis in the Church is very much aware that he views immanentism as the primary viral agent assaulting (with increasing intensity) the health of the Mystical Body... Since the mid-20th century there had been a quiet but deliberate stampede of Catholic Scripturists toward the Protestant exegetical method which had divested the Scritpures of the assumption of their historicity... From a historical account of what Our Lord really said and did, the Gospels became an historical legacy of what particular groups within the primitive Church believed He said and did. Contemporary Christians, according to this view, must be faithful to this heritage by viewing the Scriptures through the prism of their own cultures and experiences and both interpret them and apply them accordingly. So, in the end, what is supposed to be a fixed external measurement of doctrine and dogma is transformed into an internal process of a subjective methodology and the Person and message of Christ becomes nothing more than a multi cultural self reflection emanating from within a historical mirror into which the Church of any given epoch peers.
Now consider what the Holy Father, Pope Francis, said in his interview with Scalfari regarding the conscience: "Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them." Then, the very next day the same pope condemns relativism. I don't think his condemnation of relativism was disingenuous, even though the day before he was reported to have said something that can easily be construed as advocating relativism.
If we look a the Pope's words to Scalfari in light of immanentism, rather than relativism, we can see why the Pope can say one day that good and evil depends on each individual's ideation of them, and then the next day condemn in no uncertain terms that man is the author of good and evil. His immanentism insists that the divine is revealing itself, not as an external rule of faith elucidated by doctrine and dogma revealed by God, but is revealing itself in the conscience of each man, moving along an evolutionary and multicultural path to enlightenment. As such, truth is not authored by man, thus allowing Pope Francis to condemn relativism, but truth is, nonetheless, a malleable reality that changes according to the ever evolving microcosm that is man.
Like I said, this is the beginning of a thought. I'm wondering how much of this Pope's inexplicable gibberish can be explained by immanentism. For now, it seems appropriate to highlight what Pope St. Pius X had to say about immanentism in his encyclical, Pascendi dominici gregis:
7. However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernist: the positive side of it consists in what they call vital immanence. This is how they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation. But when Natural theology has been destroyed, the road to revelation closed through the rejection of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside man himself. It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. Hence the principle ofreligious immanence is formulated. Moreover, the first actuation, so to say, of every vital phenomenon, and religion, as has been said, belongs to this category, is due to a certain necessity or impulsion; but it has its origin, speaking more particularly of life, in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sentiment. Therefore, since God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and the foundation of all religion, consists in a sentiment which originates from a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favourable circumstances, cannot, of itself, appertain to the domain of consciousness; it is at first latent within the consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its roots lies hidden and undetected.
Should anyone ask how it is that this need of the divine which man experiences within himself grows up into a religion, the Modernists reply thus: Science and history, they say, are confined within two limits, the one external, namely, the visible world, the other internal, which is consciousness. When one or other of these boundaries has been reached, there can be no further progress, for beyond is the unknowable. In presence of this unknowable, whether it is outside man and beyond the visible world of nature, or lies hidden within in the subconsciousness, the need of the divine, according to the principles of Fideism, excites in a soul with a propensity towards religion a certain special sentiment, without any previous advertence of the mind: and this sentiment possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the reality of the divine, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sentiment to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this it is which they consider the beginning of religion.
8. But we have not yet come to the end of their philosophy, or, to speak more accurately, their folly. For Modernism finds in this sentiment not faith only, but with and in faith, as they understand it,revelation, they say, abides. For what more can one require for revelation? Is not that religioussentiment which is perceptible in the consciousness revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is not God Himself, as He manifests Himself to the soul, indistinctly it is true, in this same religious sense, revelation? And they add: Since God is both the object and the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and from God; that is, God is both the revealer and the revealed.
Hence, Venerable Brethren, springs that ridiculous proposition of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. Hence it is that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. Hence the law, according to which religious consciousness is given as the universal rule, to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and to which all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in its teaching capacity, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred liturgy or discipline.