Is the Papacy being manipulated by various dissident groups?

Pope Francis has not fared too well since his election. He has been criticized by those who claim to be "traditionalists" (really Integrists); he has been re-fashioned by neo-cons, welcomed and twisted by dissenters and neo-dissenters, idolized by mainstreamers.... Each group/sect has tried to create a Pope in their own image. In all of this there is a Catholic position. Let us take each group at have a brief look: 

Integrist-Traditionalists:

Those in this camp have basically hinted that Francis is a liberal with modernist leanings. A man who would "undo" Benedict's legacy. A man of the mind of Leonardo Boff. In answer: Francis' hands are tied by the Councils and dogmas of the Faith. For arguments sake, a Pope cannot undo the Gospels. He does not have the authority that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who apparently can authorize contraception, have priestesses etc. It must be granted that the Pope's Holy Thursday "incident" was gravely imprudent. I have made note of this in previous posts.  

Integrism fell into disarray in the late sixties, early seventies when faced with chaos in the Church up to, and including the Papacy. At Witness, we respond: neither schism nor heresy, but Catholic. Integrists have a certain "strength" to their argument as indeed modernism is rife. But the answer to heresy is not schism: open or occult. 

Neo-Cons:

This group needs serious consideration. They are monied, influential and represent a type of "chattering class" of Catholic who masquerade as traditional, but is in reality liberal (in social teachings) and paves the way for a subtle social modernism. This is exemplified by the recent attempts by a well known American author (always quick to hit the lecture circuit with a new book to make some quick cash) to refashion Francis as an :"evangelical" Pope; in the line of such evangelical Popes as Leo XIII, Pius X and so on. Neo-cons are generally doctrinally sound, yet overemphasize the resent pastoral council into one that has as much import as Trent or Nicea. 

It should be noted that the neo-con conception of Catholic social teachings their major weakness - especially on the State - is opposed by the Church. Pius XI condemned social modernism as vehemently anti-Catholic as doctrinal modernism. Watch for the neo-cons to try to influence Pope Francis on supporting their internationalist agenda (e.g. the hue and cry raised by the neo-cons fro the Church to support their ridiculous war cry on Iraq).

Dissenters:

This group consists of liberal Catholics who logically extend the social modernism of the neo-con into doctrinal modernism. The dissenters are extremely dangerous as they not only profess the more obvious positions, such as women as priests, sexual revolution in the Church ; but via the academia undermine Catholic doctrine at its very heart (e.g.) : the mysterium fidei: the belief in the Real Presence as defined by the Church at Trent. Watch for the dissenters to try to manipulate Francis' informal manner of celebrating Mass as as attack against the Latin Mass (which they are already doing), as well as twisting his words into supporting their heresies (e.g. his recent Angelus on women was distorted into a call for priestesses by the lunatic fringe within dissent). Note how dissenters recently crucified Archbishop Vigneron of Detroit for opposing Holy Communion for those who support Sodomic "wedlock". 

Neo-dissenters: 

This strange group consists of those who are more in tune with neo-con social modernism, yet have hankerings for elements of doctrinal dissent. These also are monied, and have close connections with the establishment. Salt and Light TV exemplifies this attitude. Doctrinally sound, they nonetheless have a CEO who holds a member of the dissenter group as a "model of hope". Neo-dissent is manifested in the CCCB's website on the new Roman Missal: at once Catholic and Lutheran, the mainstream Catholic is left with absolute confusion as to what the Mass is.  Neo-dissent is couched in pious and traditional language, yet contains spiritual poison. The ambiguity of the neo-dissenter creates the image of a doctrinally sound person, yet holds a position that is subversive and very dangerous. 

Mainstreamers:

This group makes up the vast majority of the Church "parties". It consists of your average Catholic who is not well read, confused and open to manipulation. Mainstreamers really have no convictions, other than those that influence them from outside. Firstly, by the neo-dissenters, then dissenters, thirdly by the neo-cons; lastly by the traditionalists. Most mainstreamers are comfortable to have one foot in one of the dissenting camps. Statistics inform us that the vast majority of mainstream Catholics reject Church teaching on contraception, the Real Presence etc. These people are victims. 

One interesting facet of mainstreamers (and neo-cons when the Pope agrees with them) is to change Papal infallibility into impeccability. This dangerous heresy makes of the Supreme Pontiff a demigod. The Mandatum fiasco exemplified this: mainstreamers covered their eyes (e.g. Fr. Mitch Pacwa of EWTN), dissenters twisted it to serve the ideology of priestesses, Integrists shouted heresy, neo-dissenters were caught out lying and perverting the tire into a new meaning! 

Neo-cons and mainstreamers remain silent when the "goal posts" are moved on various disciplinary issues that eventually have doctrinal implications. e.g. altar girls, communion in the hand, standing congregation until all have communicated, constant changes to the Mass etc. 

Traditional or True Catholics: 

This group consists of those who strive to follow the mind of the Church. This small body is neither "left" nor "right"; not being ideological, but seeking Truth. Traditional Catholics attend both forms of the Latin Rite (those belonging to the West); they may have grave concerns about the direction of the Church - but they hold that Christ is in charge of His Church.  True Catholics adhere to the Pope, pray for the Pope, do not disrespect their father in public. They may - respectfully - raise grave concerns - but they do so out of love. Yet they do not idolize the Pope.  eg. The Catholic response to the Mandatum was shown by someone like Fr. Z. or Ed Peters: the Pope was ill-advised in his actions for various ontological and canonical reasons.