How Do You Judge A Papacy?

I have so many questions and no answers.

How and when can we tell if the Pope Francis effect is positive or negative?

How can we tell if lapsed Catholics and non-Catholics are really looking anew at the faith? Can we use Church attendance numbers? What are the criteria?

Should we look at the number of seminarians? But what kind of seminarians are we getting?

How do you know if rather drawing people into the Church, most people are using the Francis’ effect to justify their current lifestyles?

At what point can we tell if Pope Francis’ approach to the papacy is a boon or a bust? Whether the college of Cardinals swung at a curve ball and missed or homered?

Are we even allowed to make such a judgement? Or do the intentions of the Pope matter more than actual results? In some circles you are not even allowed to examine critically the verifiably horrific results of the post-Council period.

Is this period of neo-aggiornamento (redundant, I know, but apropos) to be given the same assumption of infallibility?

If it is clear it is not working, are we allowed to say so without fear of anathema?

Is the only criteria we can judge a papacy is whether a Pope promulgated something contrary to the faith, meaning not at all?

To be Catholic, must we take on faith that these initiatives will bear fruit at some future date, some future date when all the hard-hearted souls impeding its wonderful achievements (me) move on to greener pastures?

How Do You Judge A Papacy?