Where Francis has shown speed, resolution and determination is in tackling the corruption and arrogance of the Vatican establishment.I hate stories where there's a conflict in which one party is named and another isn't.
Francis has adopted a number of ploys to limit their power, drafting in foreign laymen to tackle corruption, sloth and redundancy in finance and other departments. But now the old stagers are showing their teeth. Hence the Pope's full-frontal attack. One wishes Francis well. Anyone who has had dealings with the Vatican bureaucrats has an idea of what he is up against - those hard faces and hearts, all that pride lurking below the rhetoric of humility.
Who is leading this supposed backlash against Pope Francis?
Who are are these faceless Vatican bureaucrats who want to thwart his plans?
Basic journalism tries to answer the Five W's. In this case, there are significant elements missing.
I feel like these stories are perpetuated not for their facts, but for the ideological interests their narrative serves.
Pope Francis is, supposedly, a liberal pope. Liberals fight corruption and regressive power structures. Pope Francis is on the "liberal" side, the open, enlightened, progressive side.
But we don't really have a good idea of what the situation is, do we? We just have a white-hat-black-hat description of the conflict. That doesn't really inform the reader, does it?
We're not told facts. We're told what to think.
If we're not given the facts, how are we supposed to make a personal judgement about it?