The arguments began immediately after the start of the Pope Francis era.
Faced with wild headlines about what the pope had said, or pieces of what the pope had said, doctrinal conservatives in the Catholic blogosphere (and in some official church settings) would immediately debate whether to get mad at Pope Francis or mad at the press.
I mean, you had the Associated Press saying things like this. Note the total lack of attribution in this sentence in what was supposed to be a hard-news report, not a work of analysis:
Francis has largely shied away from emphasizing church teaching on hot-button issues, saying the previous two popes made the teaching well-known and that he wants to focus on making the church a place of welcome, not rules.
What does "welcome" mean? Are "rules" the same thing as "doctrines"?
You could see the Catholic insider camps forming early on. As I noted at the time:
There may be a few -- repeat few -- who see him as a secretly liberal Machiavelli who is steering the Catholic boat toward icebergs in order to cause massive doctrinal changes. There are others who think he is fine, when you read him in context, and that the press is totally to blame for any confusion that exists. There are others who think he means well, but that he is naive when it comes to how his off-the-cuff papacy will be presented in the media.
Right now, we have reached the point where even the unflappable Francis has begun to get a bit ticked off.


