Spadaro is more than just an advisor to Pope Francis. The way I understand it, as editor of La Civilta Cattolica, Spadaro is the unofficial voice of the Papacy. His job is to reflect what Pope Francis thinks, which is why all the articles printed in the magazine are vetted and revised by the Secretariat of State of the Holy See and must receive his approval before being published.
If Spadaro was doing his job correctly and ETWN attacked what he was saying, that is essentially a direct attack on Pope Francis and his agenda. That sort of thing happens all the time on independant media outlets like NCR, but it should not happen on one that is supposed to represent the Church.
The pope speaks for himself. Other people may, more or less, express views that are compatible with his; and when they write for a given newspaper, that may, to some extent, be reviewed for compatibility. But compatibility is far from “speaking for the pope”.
Keep in mind this is mostly about individuals, after work, going on social media. EWTN is overseen spiritually by their local bishop. Most of the criticism of Arroyo is not what he says on EWTN but what he says on social media, on his own personal sites.
After work.
The same is true for “advisors” or “spokesmen” for Pope Francis, who use
personal social media all the time. After work. Even if an editor or adviser has their official communications vetted, they then go on personal social media, or otherwise do personal press releases, that are controversial. (Keep in mind many advisers are at the Vatican only a few times each year, and only advise on their specialty. But they give press releases on whatever the media craves that week).
Just as when people see an Arroyo tweet, and say “EWTN”, they see a personal tweet or press release from someone who sometimes works for the Vatican, and say “Vatican”.
If you want to know what Pope Francis thinks, read what he wrote or said.
