I honestly don't think that the Pope has the time to address every problem in the Church at once.
Troubles in paradise? To hear talk of how much we need a supreme pontiff, one would think ya'll would have solved your problems.
After all, you claimed that this was solved: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm
The Western Schism was only a temporary misunderstanding, even though it compelled the Church for forty years to seek its true head
the Council of Constance (1414) deposed the suspicious John XXIII, received the abdication of the gentle and timid Gregory XII, and finally dismissed the obstinate Benedict XIII. On 11 November, 1417, the assembly elected Odo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. Thus ended the great schism of the West.
"A temporal kingdom would have succumbed thereto; but the organization of the spiritual kingdom was so wonderful, the ideal of the papacy so indestructible, that this, the most serious of schisms, served only to demonstrate its indivisibility"..."This scourge of contemporaries is for us an historical treasure. It serves to prove how immovable is the throne of St. Peter. What human organization would have withstood this trial?"
For one, the Russian Throne: it withstood the decades of the "Time of Troubles."
But back to the three "fonts of unity of the Church":
"Doubt still shrouds the validity of the three rival lines of pontiffs during the four decades subsequent to the still disputed papal election of 1378. This makes suspect the credentials of the cardinals created by the Roman, Avignon, and Pisan claimants to the Apostolic See. Unity was finally restored without a definitive solution to the question; for the Council of Constance succeeded in terminating the Western Schism, not by declaring which of the three claimants was the rightful one, but by eliminating all of them by forcing their abdication or deposition, and then setting up a novel arrangement for choosing a new pope acceptable to all sides. To this day the Church has never made any official, authoritative pronouncement about the papal lines of succession for this confusing period; nor has Martin V or any of his successors. Modern scholars are not agreed in their solutions; although they tend to favor the Roman line."
J.F. Broderick, "The Sacred College of Cardinals: Size and Geographical Composition (1099–1986)." Archivum historiae Pontificiae, 25: p. 14. (1987)
The Pisan line however has the favor of the Vatican's supreme pontiff Alexander VI (following the Pisan Pope Alexander V) and the medalions in St. Paul-Beyond-the-Walls. Only in the 20th century did the Annuaria Pontifica drop them from the semi-official (the "infallible" pontiffs will not approve an official list of their predecessors. It would bind them), and the Vatican's SP John XXIII disagree with this predecessor SP Alexander VI in favoring the Roman line over the Pisan Pope John XXIII.
Right now, the biggest problem that requires his attention is the Modernist Crisis.
You mean the one that your supreme, infallible, pontiffs fueled by Vatican II and the bishops they appointed to implement it?