For those who have a little theological insight or understanding of the history of theology in the last 150 years it is pretty obvious that what is commonly described as orthodoxy has been struggling for existence against a pragmatic approach to belief. Really, the big difficulty many of us have with Pope Francis' theology is that he seems to be an advocate of pragmatism and disfavours orthodoxy. In the previous papacy orthodoxy seemed to be triumphing over the theological approach Congar, Rhanner and the greatest of all proponent of this new approach to Catholic theology Hans Kung. Now, under Francis, orthodoxy is becoming a dirty word. the 'formlessness' of Kung seems to be on the rise.
My Italian is pretty poor, with 'google translate' I can with a bit of difficulty begin to make sense of something. Have a look at this article, which tries to understand Francis' theology The significant paragraph is this - my translation.
....the formulas and dogmas cannot be understood in terms of historical evolution, but every problem must be placed in its historical and socio-political context. The concept of orthodoxy must be overcome, or at least reduced, because it is used as a "reference point to stifle freedom of thought and as a weapon to police and punish" ... They define orthodoxy as "a metaphysical violence."The primacy of doctrine should be replaced by that of pastoral practice ... " (Concilium, 2/2014, p. 11).Is this why the Franciscan Friars are being dealt with apparent harshness - because they were seen as the thriving proponents of 'orthodoxy'? Is this the reason why we seem to be into a 'hermeneutic of incoherence' - because those who equate being Catholic with being 'orthodox' suddenly find themselves in a Church where they are no longer at home or even belong?