Pope Francis Blasts US Catholic Church as Reactionary

The Pope did not criticize the American Church.
He criticized some conservatives in the American Church.
Big difference,

apnews.com/article/pope-francis-vatican-conservatives-abortion-us-bbfc346c117bd9ae68a1963478bea6b3

He has stuffed the ballot box when it comes to the next conclave.

'Francis has now named nine batches of new cardinals in his 10-year papacy. Even before this latest group, he had already appointed the large majority of those eligible to elect the next pontiff — those aged under 80. With the latest appointments, the number of cardinals who meet that condition stands at 137.' [My guess, 90+ of the 137 were appointed by Francis.]

'That means, increasingly, the men who will vote for whoever succeeds Francis, in the event of his resignation or death, are churchmen supportive of his values, priorities and perspectives and who share his vision for the future of the Catholic Church.'

Only six cardinals head American archdioceses. Of the six, there are at least three who are in the Francis camp, the cardinals for Boston, Chicago, and Washington DC.

I can't say I'm an expert in these matters but I have read that the politics played in the Vatican are of the hardball variety. I've also read (maybe Russ Douthat in NYT?) that some fear there is a danger of a schism in the Church between (simply stated) Team Francis and Team Benedict.

Except that the College of Cardinals does not work like a political party and priorities change with each conclave: Pius XII to John XXIII, for example, or Paul VI to (a month later) JP II.

Or, for that matter, from Benedict XVI to Francis.

Let’s just say I am not shocked that neither McManus nor Tobin, especially the latter was not named a cardinal before he retired. His editorials/columns were thinly veiled attacks on Francis’ positions.

I learned a long time ago that to advance, it helps greatly if you can “manage your manager,” a trait that I never inherited from my father. I had a bad habit of telling my bosses, “if you don’t like or want my opinions, stop asking for them.” 😂

Sort of

The bishop never asked St Johns or Notre Dame to adopt any policy.   New policies on the topic have been instituted in all of the Worcester diocesan schools.  St Johns and Notre Dame are not diocesan schools.  It was pretty clear in the announcement that these policies were only being instituted at the diocesan schools and were not meant to go beyond that.   St Johns and Notre Dame officials did come forward and say they can take care of these issues on their own and will not independently adopt these policies.  However, I think it is important to remember that neither St Johns nor Notre Dame is going against the bishop or refusing to comply with a request/edict from the chancery

Reduced to simplicity. Why can't we all get along? Overly pompous edicts inevitably fail.The bishop's intolerance is derived from his narrow culture and is not faith-based. He is a blind man. He can't help himself.
Pray for him or is it, it.

There is no need to be tolerant of some attitudes and actions. If the bishop said that Asian students had to sit in the back of the class, or Hispanic students had to Anglicize their names, or black students had to straighten their hair, would we have to be tolerant of his opinions?  Many, here and elsewhere, view the discrimnation against  the LGBTQ+ community as being no different than that racism.  We have told ourselves in recent years that it is not enough to not be racists ourselves, but instead we have to be antiracist in our lives.  I would suggest that the same rules apply to this civil rights issue. 

Tolerance of ideas is great, but not when it is used to justify discrimination and if Catholic teaching is that mistreatment of our LGBTQ+ friends and family is allowed, I would suggest that Catholics are obligated to speak out against the Church just as Catholics spoke out against segregated Catholic elementary schools during the 1940s to the 1960s. 

I appreciate your giving me an opportunity to further explicate my comment. Agree with much of what you wrote about the need to appreciate and might I add understand others' perspectives. Most certainly your comment was an attempt at furthering tolerance of diverse viewpoints. And, I applaud you.
Nevertheless, I thought my comment was quite tolerant. Do we reject or dismiss the blind man? Most certainly not. Mine was merely an explanation of the source of his views in an attempt to understand him. His views are rooted in culture as evidenced by the fact that his position is largely an American phenomenon not widely adopted in the universal church.. Certainly, one can listen, appreciate & try to understand which is what I did. And, one can also disagree and find his opinions & behavior offensive which I do. 
Looking at the behavior of this man, one in no way can claim he has exhibited tolerance of others. I reject out of hand any equivalence between my attempt at understanding and his willful rejection of others. I can get along with others including this bishop. But, can he get along with me and others? Would he extend the same respect to me as I would to him? I, sincerely doubt it. Thanks for your thought provoking response. Peace. Now let's beat Merrimack on Saturday.

Fair enough.   I agree he would go after what he considers bad things under his role as shepherd for everyone in Worcester County no matter who is doing them.   In the case of the Nativity School, they were openly flying a symbol that he interpreted as an endorsement of an activity that is sinful.  Everyone driving down I-290 saw that "endorsement" from a Catholic school.   No one really knows who is dancing with whom at the next SJ dance.  I don't know everything going through the bishop's head, but I can see a potential difference between publicizing something and what happens behind closed doors

Gloating like that is very unbecoming. No, that wasn't enough.