Here is Crux's article which you can read in full by pressing the tittle below:
However David Gibson gets the first paragraph entirely wrong:
Many conservative Catholics have long viewed Pope Francis with suspicion thanks to his effort to shift the Church’s focus away from a culture war agenda and toward a more welcoming approach and a greater emphasis on serving the poor.
I actually think that if Pope Francis had worn the mozzetta, kept the other trappings of the monarchical or regal (regal is a better term I think) papacy and did not immediately undo all that Benedict did for the papacy and liturgy that most conservatives would not have been or would not now be as offended as they are by the blah look of his papacy and what they perceive as loose language and confusion coming from the Holy Father. But I could be wrong.
But this pope is ideological about what popes and bishops should wear if it looks princely or peacocky, and he isn't above name-calling. Wouldn't it be better for the Holy Father to be more discreet with the peacock bishops by a letter or some other type of private communication. Doesn't his name-calling divide bishops and bring division to the Church with those who don't like seeing the papacy becoming so pedestrian?
For my part, I think the culture war project of some bishops in the USA was a bit wrong headed and I have never liked bishops or priests calling out in a public way particular individuals for humiliation. It just isn't right. Bishops should meet with politicians and not make public their remarks. It is untoward. However, bishops should in no uncertain terms make clear the public teachings of the Church.
Conservatives, at least this one, has no problem inviting all kinds of people to Mass. However, if an atheist joins our RCIA and then doesn't not want to profess his faith in Christ or the Church Jesus founded, then he should not be admitted to the Sacraments of Initiation. That is a pastoral decision based upon common sense and what the rites of the Church indicate. The same is true of someone who belongs to the KKK. They have to renounce this organization and its ideology. Would one not also say that a homosexual who is actively living an unchaste life should also renounce that lifestyle before becoming Catholic and being admitted to the Sacraments?
It is a bit more problematic with homosexuals or heterosexuals living in a "marital-like" union, committed and monogamous. Do we admit them to the sacraments without a clear decision to change course and renounce even that stable lifestyle. Does everyone have to become Catholic? Should we bend over backwards to accommodate sinful lifestyles and fail to call it what it is?
I have a solution though. These kinds of people could be admitted to the Order of Cathecumens or Candidates if baptized and remain in this formal relationship with the Church. They can register in the parish, participate in the Mass and the life of the parish, but they don't receive any sacraments until a true conversion takes place. That is still welcoming unrepentant sinners but makes clear they can't receive the sacraments until they repent!
I have always said that conservatives are more organized and passionate about their beliefs than liberals are. Liberals are disorganized and not unified even in their liberality. Few bishops would go into schism with them.
Catholic bishops who are ultra-conservative might indeed lead a schism. Archbishop Lefebrve did and while it might not yet be a classic schism, the SSPX walks and talks like a schismatic duck.
For my part, I remain with St. Peter and his successor and let the Holy Spirit over the course of time and salvation history deal with the anomalies of the Episcopate, to include the Bishop of Rome, as well as those of the lower clergy and the laity!
It is all about Faith in God and God providing for His Holy Church in God's time, not mine!